- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. Supplementary affidavit filed by Abdul Samad, Learned Counsel for Shafiq Ahmad, respondent No. 1 has put in appearance. He says that there is no need to file counter-affidavit. An affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has also been filed.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. This revision has been directed against the order dated 18-2-1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Revision No. 17 1995-Shafiq Ahmad v. State and another, directing for giving custody of the jeep in question in the supurdagi of Shafiq Ahmad, respondent No. 1. Hakimuddin, the present revisionist filed a writ petition in this Court, which was registered at Serial No. 28531 of 1992. This petition was decided on 23-11-1994. It was allowed. The order dated 20-4-1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (1st) Azamgarh in Case Crime No 29 of 1992 relating to custody of jeep bearing registration No. B. L. D. 7325, which was given in the custody of Shafiq Ahmad was set aside. The Magistrate was directed to consider afresh the question of release on the basis of the material on record in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of order. The parties were directed to appear before the Magistrate and participate in the proceedings It further appears that Criminal Misc. Application No. 38757 of 1994 was filed in the same writ petition by the petitioner Hakimuddin praying for some correction in the judgment passed by the Court on 23-11- 1994 slating that some arguments were advanced without verifying the facts, which have found place in the judg ment and those facts need correction. This correction was made. Another application was filed by Shafiq Ahmad for recall of the order dated 23-11-1994 on the ground that he was not served with any notice of the writ petition. The Court was of the opinion that the impugned order does not harm the interest of Shafiq Ahmad inasmuch as the Court has not passed any direction to take back the custody of jeep from him and to hand it over to the petitioner without determination of the disputed question of ownership. Some ques tions were also raised about the service upon the respondent No. 1. The Court was of the opinion that question of service looses its importance as the other party has appeared and it will have full opportunity of hearing before the Magistrate. The proceedings were not re-opened and the Magistrate was directed to decide the question of ownership of the jeep, which has been disputed on account of the alleged subsequent purchases. The application for re-calling of the judgment was rejected. The parties were directed to appear before the Magistrate and co-operate with him for an early decision regarding the disputed question of ownership for the limited purposes of release of the jeep. It appears that in the meantime the jeep was taken from the custody of respondent No. 1. After the decision of the writ petition the respondent No. 1 applied for giving the jeep in his custody. This application was rejected by the Magistrate. He tiled Criminal Revision No. 17 of 1995 which was allowed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. He directed that the jeep be given in the supurdagi of Shafiq Ahmad till the matter was finally adjudicated by the Magistrate. He also imposed some conditions. Aggrieved by this order, Hakimuddin has come to this Court in revision.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. Since during the pendency of the writ petition Shafiq Ahmad was deprived of the possession and this Court while deciding the writ petition did not direct that Shafiq Ahmad be deprived of the possession it was just and proper that after the judgment in the writ petition Shafiq Ahmad was restored the possession. Revisional court by its order in question as restored the possession of Shafiq Ahmad. This order is not in violation of the order passed by this Court. In the circumstances the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Parties are, however, directed to appear before the Magistrate concerned on 28-2-1995. The Magistrate would then decide the matter as to in whose "supurdagi the jeep is to be given in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 28531 of 1992- Hakimuddin v. Shafiq Ahmad and others and Criminal Misc. Application No, 38757 of 1994 moved by Shafiq Ahmad in the above writ petition. Decided accordingly. .;