An order passed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deciding the entitlement of the parties to the property in question finally at that stage, is necessarily subject to revision by the Court and revision against the same is competent before a Court of Session.

By this Revision Petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of Addl, Sessions Judge (II), Kangra, in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1987 decided on 21-10-1987.

2. The facts, in brief. are that respondent No. 2 is the registered owner of the disputed truck HPK-9045 hypothecated with the Canara Bank, Bhawarna as the same has been purchased with the loan raised from this bank and the outstanding amount is stated to be Rs. 94,000/-. Respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement for sale on 22-7-1987 and as per the terms of the argument (Ex. A. 1), the petitioner has to pay the balance of the instalments to the bank. However, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to respondent No. 2 at the time of the execution of the agreement. It is further alleged that the delivery of the truck was given to the petitioner immediately on the conclusion of this agreement along with its key and documents.

3. The petitioner further slates that since after the obtaining of the possession of the truck he started plying it and at one time in order to go to Pathankote to get the vehicle repaired, he sought permission of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palampur on 30-7-1987 and an entry to this effect is reflected in the record of the Chakki Bridge Check Post. After getting the vehicle repaired at Pathankote, he paid the repair charges and brought back the same to Bhawarna. On 6-8-1987 while he had parked the truck on the road side, respondent No. 2 stealthily took it away and it was recovered from his possession by the police after a case was registered by the petitioner with the police. At present the case is pending for trial. An application under S.451 of the Criminal P.C. was filed by the petitioner on 10-8-1987 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, for obtaining the custody of the truck. A similar application was filed by respondent No. 2 also. Both these applications were decided by the Magistrate on 11-9-1987 and by his order the Magistrate held the petitioner entitled to the possession of the truck pending trial of the main case. As a result of this order, the custody of the truck was handed over to the petitioner after execution of a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. This order of the Magistrate was assailed by respondent No. 2 by way of a revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge (II), Kangra and he prayed for the custody of the truck. The Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned decision allowed the petition of respondent No. 2 and ordered handing over of the possession of the vehicle to him on the ground that the truck is owned by respondent No. 2 and the registration of the same also state in his name. Besides, it was, prima facie, found that a sum of Rs. 94,000/- was still to be paid to the Bank. The Court further found that the factum of payment of Rs. 40,000/- in cash and handing over of the possession of the vehicle on execution of the document (Ex. A. 1) was not proved. Taking a cumulative view of the matter, respondent No. 2 was found to be entitled to the custody of the truck. The petitioner has a grievance against this order and, therefore, challenges the same by way of this petition.

4. Shri S.S. Kanwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. Elaborating his submissions, it is asserted that the revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kangra, was not competent. Therefore, the same is a nullity. A perusal of the order dated 20-10-1987 shows that jurisdiction of the Court was not at all challenged by the petitioner in that Court. Shri Vijay Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submits that the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise this plea for the first time in this Court. The objection of Shri S.S. Kanwar being purely legal in nature, is allowed to be raised as the same relates to the jurisdiction of the Court and goes to the root of the matter. Shri S.S. Kanwar contends that the order of the Magistra