Honble VERMA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). This case has a very interesting and chequered history. Chunni Lal and Khuma Ram were initially registered owners of Truck RJQ 2633. They sold this truck to one Safi Mohammed on 13.2.1989 and also parted with possession. It appears that when this truck was parked by Safi Mohammed in compound of one Dhoklaram, a theft took place in respect of this truck and FIR No. 31/89 of Police Station City was registered under section 379, IPC. Due investi-gation was made. The truck in question was seized and the case was challenged in the court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sojat. On 25.2.1989, Chunni Lal and Khuma Ram applied for release of truck on the ground that they were registered owners. Safi Mohammed, who had purchased the truck but in whose favour registration had not been effected, consented by making a written endorsement on the application that the custody of the truck may be given to registered owner Shri Chunni Lal and Khuma Ram. The learned Magistrate, thereupon, passed an order on the same day directing delivery of truck on supurdgi to Chunni Lal and Khuma Ram for two months. It passes my comprehension as to why this rider of two months was added when the trial could not have been completed within the said period. This period of two months expired on 25.4.1989 and the bonds ceased to be enforceable by afflux of time. It appears that meanwhile, some sort of compromise had also taken place between Safi Mohammed and Dhokla Ram. Eventually, the registered owners Shri Chunni Lal and Shri Khuma Ram sold this truck to the present petitioner Deepa Ram and the Certificate of Registration was effected in name of Deepa Ram on 21.11.1992. (3). It appears that since trial of the case on the basis of FIR No. 31/89 of Police Station, Sojat City is still pending, the learned Magistrate directed superddars Chunni Lal and Khuma Ram to produce the truck in the court. This truck was produced by Deepa Ram on 23.9.1993 in the court and Deepa Ram requested the court that the truck may be delivered to him. This truck was produced by Deepa Ram on 23.9.1993 in the court and Deepa Ram requested the court that the truck may be delivered to him. The learned Magistrate was of the view that since the original owners had committed breach of the bonds by transferring the owner-ship of truck in favour of Deepa Ram, the truck could not be delivered to Deepa Ram. (4). Mr. N.N. Mathur, counsel for the petitioners submits that the bond by which truck had been delivered to Chunni Lal and Khuma Ram had come to an end by afflux of time. Petitioner Deepa Ram is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of the truck in question and is a registered owners thereof and hence he is entitled to possession of the truck. If the original registered owners have committed any breach of a bond, they may be prosecuted for commission of such breach but the learned Magistrate was not right in refusing delivery of the truck to the petitioner, who is a duly registered owner of the truck. (5) The revision petition is opposed by the learned P.P. as also by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Safi Mohammed. The learned P.P. submits that trial would be shortly concluded and, therefore, the truck may not be delivered to the petitioner and the learned Magistrate was right in refusing delivery of truck to him. The learned counsel appearing for Safi Mohammed vehemently urges that the truck had been purchased by Safi Mohammed and as such he is entitled to delivery of the truck and the learned Magistrate was right in refusing delivery of the truck to Deepa Ram, the present registered owner of the truck.. (6). I have considered the rival contentions and have carefully given my earnest consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. (7). There is no allegation that Deepa Ram in any way knew that the truck had been released on a bond in favour of Chunni Lal and Khuma Ram and Chunni Lal and Khuma Ram were not entitled to pass owner-ship of the truck to him. Thus he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of the truck in question. He is also a registered owner of the truck and, therefore, he is entitled to the custody of the truck. Thus he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of the truck in question. He is also a registered owner of the truck and, therefore, he is entitled to the custody of the truck. However, since the trial is pending, the truck may be required by the learned Magistrate for purposes of identification. For this limited purpose necessary conditions can be imposed upon the present petitioner so that as and when identification of the truck is required, it may be produced before the Court. (8). So far as Safi Mohammed it Concerned, he is not a registered owner of the truck and had consented to the delivery of the truck to the original registered owner. If he has any claim in respect of the truck, he must pursue his remedy against the original registered owners, who had purported to transfer truck to him. He cannot challenge the title of the present petitioner who is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration of the truck, (9). I, therefore, find that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 4.10.1993 cannot be sustained and is set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate shall deliver truck to the present registered owner Deepa Ram on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 5000/-; that he shall produce the truck before the trial court as and when required to do so. The expenses of bringing the truck to the court and taking it back would be borne by the State and not by the present petitioner who is a purchaser for a valuable consideration. In the bond, a condition shall be entered that during the pendency of the trial of the case, petitioner Deepa Ram shall not alienate or transfer the possession of the truck to anybody. He shall inform this fact in writing to the Registering Authority so that the Registering Authority may incorporate this stipulation in the Certificate of Registration. (10). The revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of.