JUDGMENT Kundan Singh, J. - While disposing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I felt that the appeal itself can be decided right now, hence I heard Sri K. K. Arora for the appellant and Shri Tiwari for the State on the merits of the appeal also. 2. This appeal has been filed by Firm M/s. Siv Shanker Roadways, Near Modi Temple, Modi Nagar Ghaziabad through Ramesh Chand Goel against the order dated 7.4.1989, passed by Brijendra Singh, Xlllth Additional Sessions Judge Moradabad. By that order, the property has been released in favour of Smt. Murshadi Begum from whose possession it was recovered by the police as looted property on the information given by accused Mashood Shah. According to the allegation made in the F.I.R., the driver was carrying 600 tins of ghee from Modi Nagar,to Bareilly. In the way, the truck was intercepted and looted and an F.I.R. of this incident was lodged by the driver. The accused Mashood Shah was challaned by the police under Sections 412, 395 and 397 I.P.C. He was put up for identification but was not identified by any witness and no incriminating article was recovered from his possession hence he was discharged by the Court on 14.10.88. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that as the police did not challan Smt. Murshadi Begum under Section 412 I.P.C. She made an application before the XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad for release of the property by the order appealed against the property has been directed to be released in her favour. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was not afforded opportunity nor was the Firm given any notice before passing the order releasing the property and the order dated 7.4.89, passed by the XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, releasing the property in favour of Smt. Murshadi Begum was ex-party order without giving the notice to the real owner of the property. He also argued that the property in dispute belong to the appellant firm and the same was a looted property. He also pointed out that the appellant has already moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge being Criminal Misc. Application I of 1991, and that application is still pending. He also argued that the property in dispute belong to the appellant firm and the same was a looted property. He also pointed out that the appellant has already moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge being Criminal Misc. Application I of 1991, and that application is still pending. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to review its order and to alter it even after hearing the appellant and hence the appellant had filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant as the property which was looted, belonged to the appellant firm and it was not given proper opportunity or notice of being heard prior to the disposal of the property, as the appellant could establish its ownership about the property in dispute and he was entitled 'to be heard. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that after the impugned order of release, the property has not yet been released as the appellant has filed an application before the Court concerned which is still pending. The appellant's counsel also urged that both the parties Smt. Murshadi Begum and the appellant be given an opportunity of he ring before deciding the ownership of the property in dispute. The submission of the appellant's counsel is very genuine and I think he should be given an opportunity for establishing the ownership over the property in dispute in the court concerned. 6. I heard the counsel for the State also. He agreed that the appellant must have been given an opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of final order disposing the property. 7. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 7.4.89, passed by Bijendra Singh, X1IIth Additional Session Judge, Moradabad is set aside. The Court concerned is directed to decide the matter afresh at an early date according to law after giving appropriate opportunity to the appellant, Smt. Murshadi Begum and State. 8. Office is directed to send down the record to the Court below forthwith.