PLJ 2009 Lahore 483

Present: S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J.

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN--Petitioner

versus

ADDL. SESSION JUDGE--Respondent

W.P. No. 1807 of 2009, decided on 24.2.2009.

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471--Remedy against revision order--Purchase and sale of vehicle--Petitioner's application for superdari of vehicle dismissed by two Courts below--Petitioner also brought a civil suit for settlement of ownership dispute but he was not given any interim relief uptil appeal--Selling vehicles without securing full ownership, is a practice but any practice which is opposed to legal provisions, cannot claim any precedence--Petitioner as per his own showings, has sold vehicle to a person with condition that he would hand over transfer letter on receipt of entire consideration--First Appellate Court rightly observed that his status as owner of vehicle, if any, stood terminated when he sold same and that at most, he could claim balance amount from purchaser--Vehicle was directed to be given on superdari to respondent (another purchaser) by Magistrate and upheld in revision by First Appellate Court--Law does not provide any remedy against revisional order passed by a Court of Sessions, in hierarchy of Criminal Procedure Code--High Court would, therefore, be slow in entertaining a writ petition against revisional orders passed by Court of Sessions, particularly when it is based on evidence and is clothed with authority--Controversial questions of facts cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction--Proper forum is Civil Court and a civil suit has already been filed by writ petition in which he had failed to get any interim relief--Writ petition is not maintainable and consequently dismissed in limine. [Pp. 484 & 485] A, B & C

Malik Sahib Khan Awan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 24.2.2009.

Order

Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 21.11.2008, passed by Mr. Muhammad Zulfiqar Lone, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby he had dismissed the revision petition brought before him against the order dated 31.7.2008, passed by Ch. Munir Ahmad, learned Magistrate, Section 30, Faisalabad.

2. The dispute relates to Vehicle No. SAB-1853, the subject matter of FIR No. 323/06 registered under Sections 420/468/471 PPC Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad. The case of the petitioner was that he had purchased the above said vehicle on open transfer letter from one Siraj Ahmad son of Ghulam Qadir of Sanda Khurd, Lahore and had sold the same to Respondent No. 7, Muhammad Ismail for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/-; that he had received earnest money as Rs.70,000/- and balance amount was settled to be paid in monthly installments of Rs.5000/- each; that it was agreed that after full payment, he would give the transfer letter to Muhammad Ismail, Respondent No. 7 but that Muhammad Ismail in connivance with Respondents Nos.5 and 6 (Asghar Ali and Muhammad Latif), prepared a fake and forged transfer letter and got the vehicle transferred in the name of Respondent No. 5 (Asghar Ali). The contention is that the petitioner was entitled to the Superdari of the vehicle but that the two learned Courts below had illegally dismissed his application without any lawful justification.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record appended with the writ petition. It reveals from the record, and there is no denying of this fact, that Siraj Din was the original owner of the aforesaid vehicle. It was transferred by way of sale transaction by Siraj Din in favour of Ghulam Jilani. Ghulam Jilani then transferred the same to Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner. Muhammad Ramzan by way of an agreement, sold to Muhammad Ismail, Respondent No. 7 and the latter further transferred the vehicle to Asghar Ali (Respondent No. 5). Lastly, it was sold by Asghar Ali to Muhammad Bashir. The matter was taken to the authorities of the Excise & Taxation Department. The Motoring Registration Authority, Faisalabad vide order dated 3.10.2007, summed up the issue with the direction that the parties should invoke the jurisdiction of the civil Court for settlement of the ownership dispute. The petitioner also brought a civil suit but he was not given any interim relief uptil appeal. Selling vehicles without securing full ownership, is a practice but any practice which is opposed to legal provisions, cannot claim any precedence. The petitioner as per his own showings, had sold the vehicle to Muhammad Ismail with the condition that he would hand over the transfer letter on receipt of the entire consideration. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 21.11.2008, rightly observed that his status as owner of the vehicle, if any, stood terminated when he sold the same and that at the most, he could claim the balance amount from the purchaser Muhammad Ismail. The preponderance of record appended with the writ petition by the petitioner himself, was clearly against him. The vehicle was directed to be given on Superdari to Muhammad Bashir, Respondent No. 3, by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad vide his order dated 31.7.2008. This order was upheld in revision by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide the impugned order dated 21.11.2008. The law does not provide any remedy against the revisional order passed by a Court of Session, in the hierarchy of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court would, therefore, be slow in entertaining a writ petition against the revisional orders passed by the Court of Session, particularly when it is based on evidence and is clothed with authority. No non-reading or misreading of the material on record was pointed out either.

4. In the present case, I find that both the learned two Courts below had passed the impugned orders on sound reasoning and taking into consideration the relevant facts. Controversial questions of facts cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction. The proper forum is the civil Court and a civil suit has already been filed by the writ petitioner in which he failed to get any interim relief.

5. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is not entertainable and the same is consequently, dismissed in limine.

(Sh.A.S.) Petition dismissed.