Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SAEED versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

- Section & 42 and ??? Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Exxonax, RRL & 2 decla Suit for Declaration and Order Prohibition, Interim Order Prohibition, Customs Recovery Grant Custody Authorized Vehicles Seized Becomes Smuggled Vehicle Accused - Plaintiff Requests Recovery From Vehicle Occupation On Request That He Was The Honest Buyer Of A Vehicle For Sale At Auction By Customs Authorities - Justified - Anyone By Plaintiff There was no element that purchased the vehicle. There was no reasonable basis for valid consideration post after the title was confirmed by its former owner and it should be predicted that the plaintiff was not in any way dealing with the smuggled goods or any goods, carrying, collecting Worried about doing, harboring, keeping or hiding or dealing with in any way. In this regard, it can be reasonably suspected that they were smuggled goods. Super judicial discretion could be used to release the vehicle on the vehicle. urety - If a court can grant final relief, it also has the jurisdiction to grant temporary relief - the High Court instructed authorities to hand over the vehicle to the defendant in a final decision by customs authorities. Shall be subject to the final outcome of the decision. Application allowed in circumstances [pp 630, 634] A&E

PLD 2017 Sindh 622

Before Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J

MUHAMMAD SAEED—Plaintiff

versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division/Chairman and others—Defendants

Suit No.551 of 2017, decided on 21st June, 2017.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)—

— Ss.42 & 54— Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2—Suit for declaration and injunction— Interim injunction, grant of— Recovery of possession—Vehicle in question was detained by Customs authorities alleging the same to be a smuggled vehicle— Plaintiff sought recovery of possession of vehicle on the plea that he was bona fide purchaser of vehicle which was sold by Customs authorities in auction—Validity—No element of mens rea existed on the part of plaintiff who purchased the vehicle against valuable consideration after due verification of title of its fÓrm;er owner—No reasonable grounds existed to postulate and predicate that plaintiff was in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing or in any manner dealing with smuggled goods or any goods with respect to which there could be reasonable suspicion that they were smuggled goods—Judicial discretion could be exercised for release of vehicle on Superdari/surety—If a court could grant final relief, it also possessed inherent jurisdiction to grant temporary relief pending before it—High Court directed the authorities to hand over possession of vehicle in question to plaintiff subject to final outcome of adjudication proceedings finalized by Customs authorities— Application was allowed in circumstances. [pp. 630, 634] A & E

2013 PTD 765; Collector of Customs, Peshawar v. Wali Khan and others Civil Appeal No. 1050 of 2009; Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others Civil Appeal No. 1600 of 2006; Messrs Ghani Tayvab (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others Civil Petitions Nos.832-K to 833-K of 2011; Messrs Binaco Traders v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2006 PTD 1491 and Malik Muhammad Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2006 PTD 2167 ref.

Jawaid Farooqi for Plaintiff.

Kashif Nazeer for Defendants Nos. 3 to 5.

Abdul Qadir Leghari, Assistant Attorney General.

Muhammad Aftab, Deputy Collector, Appraisement Customs

(West).

Ilyas Ahsan, Law Officer, FBR.

Dates of hearing: 22nd and 25th May, 2017.

immigration advocate from Patoki lawyer