LAL DIN vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND Another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the custody (superdari) of a tractor. The petitioner claimed ownership, alleging that the respondent had manipulated registration documents due to political enmity and had filed false theft reports. The tractor had been initially entrusted to the respondent on superdari following the first theft case. Although a subsequent theft case filed by the respondent was declared false by the police and the discharge report was accepted by the Magistrate, the original theft case remained pending. The petitioner challenged the High Court's dismissal of his revision petition, which had upheld the Magistrate's order granting superdari to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that since the initial theft case had never been cancelled and the original order of superdari in favor of the respondent had not been withdrawn or recalled, the respondent remained entitled to the possession of the tractor. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the petition, affirming that the tractor should remain in the respondent's custody.
- Does the pendency of an original theft case entitle the initial superdar to retain custody of the property despite a subsequent false case report?
- Can a court interfere with an order of superdari when the underlying criminal case has not been cancelled or the order recalled?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner by this petition seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 9-4-1978 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 1977. The facts of the case are that a tractor allegedly belonging to Muhammad Shaft (respondent No. 1 herein) was stolen and he lodged an F. I. R. On, 10-5-1975 against the present petitioner. The tractor was recovered and given on superdarl to the respondent. It appears that an agreement, thereafter, was arrived at between the parties and the custody of the tractor was handed over to the petitioner Lal Din on certain terms. Sometimes thereafter another theft case was registered by Muhammad Shaft respondent. During the course of investigation the Police recovered the tractor and again gave it on superdari to Muhammad Shafi respondent. However, the Investigating Officer found that the second F.I. R. Was bogus and false and made a discharge report, which was accepted by the Ilaqa Magistrate. The petitioner herein filed a. Revision before the Lahore High Court against the order of the llaqa Magistrate, whereby superdari of the tractor was given to the respondent. This petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of that Court, vide order dated 9th April 1978. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Before us, it was submitted that in fact the petitioner was the owner of the tractor and had purchased it from Messrs M. M. Motors, Queens Road, Lahore. But as he had enmity with one Mahmood- Abbas Bukhari, an Ex. M. N. A., the latter got all the entries in the registration book made in favour of the respondent and also got a false case registered against the petitioner.
2. Again, after the lodging of the first F. I. R., an agreement was arrived at between the parties, in pursuance whereof the possession of the tractor was given to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the second F. I. R. Lodged in connection with the theft of the same tractor was found false by the Investigating Officer, who made a discharge report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, and the same was accepted. In view of these circumstances, it was submitted that the custody of the tractor ought to have been given to the petitioner as the tractor war taken from his possession and he is its bona fide owner.
3. We observe that in the previous theft case the tractor was entrusted tot the respondent on superdari. It is an admitted position that the said case has never been cancelled, nor the order entrusting the tractor to the respondent, on superdari withdrawn. Consequently, so long as the previous case is no cancelled and the order of superdari in favour of Muhammad Shafi respondent is not recalled, he will be entitled to the possession of the tractor. In thisview of the matter, no ground for interference with the view of the Courts below that the tractor shall remain on superdarl with the respondent exists.
4. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.