Allahabad High Court
Abdul Mannan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4474 of 2015
Revisionist :- Abdul Mannan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Kha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A are present.
It appears from perusal of the order sheet that vide order dated 30.08.2016, this Court had directed the revisionist to take steps within ten days to serve notice on opposite party no. 2, by ordinary post as well as registered post with A.D. Office report shows that no such steps has been taken by the revisionist.
The learned counsel for the revisionist has requested for giving some time for taking steps.
It appears strange that even after expiry of almost three years no steps have been taken. This alone is good reason for dismissing the revision.
So, far as the fact is concerned, it appears that a review application in the form of objection application was given before the lower court below for releasing the disputed vehicle alleging that the same was purchased by the revisionist from the owner Shri. Deepak Tyagi, opposite party no. 2. The lower court below found that the registration certificate is in favour of Shri. Deepak Tyagi and no valid document was produced by the revisionist to show his ownership on the disputed truck, therefore, the same was released in favour of Shri. Deepak Tyagi. It has been mentioned in the impugned order that in review application it was alleged that there was an agreement for the purchase of the disputed truck in between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2, but the lower court below found that there was no such authentic document to show that such agreement was entered.
The agreement which has been annexed with this revision is to the effect that revisionist paid more than Rs. 50 lakhs to Shri.Deepak Tyagi and only Rs. 42,000/- was left to be paid by the revisionist. If it is so, once the truck has been released in favour of the registered owner, the matter becomes in between the revisionist and the registered owner and the appropriate remedy available to the revisionist is to put his claim by filing a civil suit on that basis.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. The revision has got no force, revision is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, the revision is accordingly dismissed.
It is, however, observed that the revisionist will be at liberty to file a regular suit and seek appropriate remedy according to law before the competent court of law.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
PS
