United Bank limited vs Additional Sessions Judge Ss — 2026 MLD 716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

United Bank limited VS Additional Sessions Judge Ss. 516-a & 561-a---Superdari of vehicle---Inherent power of High Court---Scope---Report was filed by the police that the vehicle in question was a case property in a criminal case---Petitioner/bank alleged that vehicle was leased out in favour of customer, who failed to pay the installments---Trial Court dismissed the application of petitioner for superdari, which orders were upheld by the appellate Court---Validity---Report submitted by City Police Officer revealed that the vehicle in question pertained to case FIR No. 569 of 2020 registered under Ss.457, 380 & 511, P.P.C---Complainant registered the FIR against four unknown accused persons for attempting to commit theft of tower batteries---Later, the complainant nominated "S" as an accused in the FIR---Said fact suggested that "S", to whom a finance facility was extended, was named in the said FIR---Present petitioner was the sole claimant of the vehicle to date, who had the original documents/excise file---Report submitted by the City Police Officer revealed that UBL concerned branch issued a letter stating that on 24.01.2024 a certificate was issued by UBL Bank to DPO, verifying that the vehicle in question was leased to the customer, "S", under the Higher Purchase agreement (HPa)/Finance agreement with United Bank Limited---Bank verified that United Bank Limited owned the vehicle---Bank also verified that the original file/excise file and a copy of the registration book were available in the bank record---Original registration book was handed over to the customer---as the vehicle in question, the bank financed the vehicle to the customer for 60th Months" installment plan, which started from april 2017 and matured on March 2022; customer deposited only 41 installments till the month of august 2020, thereafter defaulted in payment of monthly lease rental and at present, an amount of Rs.655,594.90/- was still outstanding against the said vehicle/customer and thereafter it was seized in case FIR No. 569/2020---In the circumstances, the retention of the car in question in police possessions for an indefinite period would mean a completely damaged and deteriorated condition of the vehicle---Neither of the Courts below was justified in refusing the superdari of car in question to the petitioner---Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned orders, in circumstances.

United Bank limited vs Additional Sessions Judge Ss — 2026 MLD 716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD