JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned trial Court by its order dated 20-8-1993 has granted interim custody of Tractor No. RSD 7237 in favour of Akhatar Hussain on production of security in a sum of Rs. 100,000/, Petitioner Mazeed @ Azeem, who claims to be one of the registered owners of the Tractor, challenges the aforesaid order and submits that learned trial Court ought to have granted custody of the Tractor to him. Learned trial Court after going through the material on record has observed that prima fade the Tractor was in possession of Akhatar Hussain and not in possession of Mazeed @ Azeem, and he dismissed the application of Mazeed @ Azeem and granted custody of the Tractor to Akhatar Hussain. 3. I have gone through the material on record with the help of learned counsel on either side and find that Haniff, a joint owner of the Tractor in question, had agreed to sell the same in favour of Akhatar Hussain by an Ikararnama' dated 27-6-1991. There is evidence on record that the custody of the Tractor had been handed over to Akhatar Hussain and while the Tractor was parked for repairs at the work-shop of Sohan Lal, the Tractor was stolen. In my opinion, the learned trial Court was right in granting the interim custody to respondent No.2 Shri Akhatar Hussain on the basis of the alleged possession. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 has not proved that the Tractor was in his possession on the date of alleged theft. In my opinion, the question of 'proved' does arise as and when the trial takes place. At this stage, suffice it to say that there is prima facie evidence to show that the possession of the Tractor had been handed over to Akhatar Hussain and the Tractor was parked at the workshop of Sohan Lal from where it has allegedly been removed. The interim order passed by the Court is subject to final decision of the case when the learned Magistrate would be in a position to decide whether possession of Tractor had passed from Akhatar Hussain in the matter alleged by him, or not. 5. In facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in this petition. The interim order passed by the Court is subject to final decision of the case when the learned Magistrate would be in a position to decide whether possession of Tractor had passed from Akhatar Hussain in the matter alleged by him, or not. 5. In facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in this petition. The petitioner is free to agitate his rights before competent civil court, if he so chooses. At the cost of repetition, I would like to state that the interim order is only provisional and would be subject to the final order which is to be passed in the case by the learned trial court after parties would lead their evidence and would be heard by him. 6. The petition is dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******