Judgment. This case is somewhat out of the ordinary and although it does appear that the appellant who figured as the plaintiff in O.S. No. 69 of 1958 on the file of the Second Assistant Judge, Secunderabad, has not been treated fairly by the Criminal Court, yet in filing the present suit in a civil Court, it seems to rue that the appellant has chosen the wrong forum. The appellant, Messrs. Sagarmall Meghraj, a joint family firm carrying on business as jewellers and bankers, brought the present suit against the two respondents Abdul Raheem and Abdul Hafeez, for the recovery of a sum of H.S. Rs. 116-10-8 or in the alternative for the return of the articles pledged or their value from Abdul Hafeez (the 2nd defendant-2nd respondent). The undisputed facts are that on 16th January, 1954 Abdul Raheem (the 1st defendant-1st respondent) pledged with the plaintiff a pair of silver ‘kadas’ and a necklace and borrowed a sum of H.S. Rs. 10, and on 20th May, 1954 he pledged another item, namely, a pair of ‘painzab’ (silver anklets) for a sum of Rs. 91-8-0 making up a total of H.S. Rs. 101-8-0. The first defendant and the 2nd defendant are brothers-in-law, having married sisters. They were living in the same house in different rooms. On 13th August, 1954, the 2nd defendant lodged a complaint with the police alleging that his brother-in-law, the 1st defendant, had committed theft of certain silver ornaments and silk saris. The police filed a charge-sheet, C.C. No. 29/2 of 1955, before the First Class Magistrate, Secunderabad. In the course of the investigation, the police seized from the plaintiff the articles which had been pledged by the 1st defendant and deposited the same in Court. The accused (first defendant) was absconding and so the Magistrate recorded the evidence of witnesses under section 512, Criminal Procedure Code, in the absence of the accused and apparently because he could not be apprehended, the Magistrate made an order on 9th December, 1954. in the following terms: "Case closed for the present", obviously meaning thereby that after the accused has been arrested, the case would be reopened and proceeded with. It may be remembered that at that time the articles which had been seized by the police from the plaintiff were in deposit in Court. in the following terms: "Case closed for the present", obviously meaning thereby that after the accused has been arrested, the case would be reopened and proceeded with. It may be remembered that at that time the articles which had been seized by the police from the plaintiff were in deposit in Court. On 9th April, 1956, the 2nd defendant filed an application before the criminal Court presumably under section 516-A, Criminal Procedure Code, stating that the accused was absconding, that the criminal case was pending, that the jewels were wanted by the 2nd defendant’s wife for wearing them at a wedding, and that the Court may be pleased to return the jewels to him. (2nd defendant on his executing the necessary bond. On nth April, 1956 the Magistrate passed the following order: "The property be given in the custody of the complainant provided he files undertaking to the effect that he will submit the same in this Court as and when required, else he shall pay a penalty of Rs. 200I.G." Thereupon on the same day, the 2nd defendant furnished a bond in the following terms and filed it into Court: "I, Abdul Hafeez, s/o Gulam Rasool, aged 60 years, watch-repairer, r/o Ghun Bazaar H. No. 4.5, Secunderabad, has been ordered to furnish security to the extent of I.G. Rs. 200 for the case property in the above case. I hereby bind myself to produce the property before any Court at Secunderabad or at Hyderabad whenever required and continue so to produce until otherwise directed and in case of my making default therein, I bind myself to forfeit to Government of India the sum of I.G. Rs. 200." Thereupon the learned Magistrate directed the return of the case property to the and defendant. Subsequently, after exchange of notices, the plaintiff brought the present suit. His case was that he was a bona fide pledgee for value without notice and that the 2nd defendant had no right whatever to claim possession of those articles. In respect of the pledge, the sum payable by the first defendant was H.S. Rs. 101-8-0 for principal and Rs. 15-2-8 for interest at 6 per cent. per annum mating up a total of H.S. Rs. 116-10-8. The 1st defendant remained ex parte. In respect of the pledge, the sum payable by the first defendant was H.S. Rs. 101-8-0 for principal and Rs. 15-2-8 for interest at 6 per cent. per annum mating up a total of H.S. Rs. 116-10-8. The 1st defendant remained ex parte. The 2nd defendant’s case was that he is the absolute owner of the articles in question, that he had no knowledge of the transaction between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, that he had lodged a complaint with the police, that the police had recovered the property from the plaintiff and it had been deposited in the criminal Court and that on an application filed by him, the Magistrate had returned the property to him on his giving a bond undertaking to produce them when called upon to do so for purposes of the case. After framing the necessary issues, the trial Court found that the 1st defendant had pledged the suit items with the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiff’s suit against both the defendants jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court so far as it affected him the 2nd defendant filed an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court. The learned Judge considered the only point in the appeal before him which was whither the suit of the plaintiff could be decreed against the 2nd defendant. The learned Judge pointed out that the evidence in the case showed that it was not the 2nd defendant that had pledged the articles with the plaintiff and that the articles had been handed over to the 2nd defendant by an order of the criminal Court. In those circumstances, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff’s suit for the recovery of the amount or the jewels could not be decreed against the 2nd defendant. He accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the trial Court’s decree so far as it sought to make the 2nd defendant liable. The decree as against the 1st defendant was left in tact. The learned Judge pointed out that none of the sections which was relied on before him, namely, sections 164, 167 and 180-A of the Indian Contract Act, was applicable to the facts of the present case. Even a bare reading of those sections shows that they could not possibly be pressed into service on the facts proved in this case. The learned Judge pointed out that none of the sections which was relied on before him, namely, sections 164, 167 and 180-A of the Indian Contract Act, was applicable to the facts of the present case. Even a bare reading of those sections shows that they could not possibly be pressed into service on the facts proved in this case. The view taken by the lower appellate Court with regard to the applicability of those sections is obviously right. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff-appellant, however, relied upon sections 10 and 11 (d) of the Specific Relief Act as entitling his client to a decree as prayed for. Section 10 reads thus: "A person entitled to the possession of specific movable property may recover the same in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. " The relevant portion of section 11 is as follows: "Any person having the possession or control of a particular article of movable property, of which he is not the owner may be compelled specifically to deliver it to the person entitled to its immediate possession, in any of the following cases. (a), (b), (c),........................................................ (d) When the possession of the thing claimed has been wrongfully transferred from the claimant. " It is difficult to see how either of the above sections can be invoked in the present case. It must be remembered that the criminal case is still pending, although it has been closed for the present till the surrender or apprehension of the accused therein. Furthermore, the property which was seized by the police was kept in the custody of the Court, and under section 516-A, Criminal Procedure Code, the criminal Court is given the power either to retain the property with it or to make appropriate orders for its custody pending the disposal of the case. In the instant case, the criminal Court took a bond from the 2nd defendant and handed the jewels over to him on the undertaking that he would produce them whenever necessary. That being so, it cannot possibly be said that the possession of the articles in question had been “wrongfully transferred from the claimant”. The police who seized the articles from the plaintiff had the power to do so under the law and the Magistrate who passed the interim order with regard to them had also the power to do so under the law. The police who seized the articles from the plaintiff had the power to do so under the law and the Magistrate who passed the interim order with regard to them had also the power to do so under the law. No doubt the Magistrate was in error in handing over the property, even temporarily, to the and defendant, who was the complainant in the case, without giving notice to the plaintiff, from whose possession the police had seized the property. That is a matter which could be corrected on the criminal side either by the District Magistrate or the High Court, but it cannot possibly be said that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order or that the 2nd defendant who obtained possession of the property is in wrongful or illegal possession thereof. In my opinion, the plaintiff cannot recover possession of the property from the 2nd defendant, nor can he get a decree against him for the amount for which the property had been pledged by the 1st defendant The plaintiff has got a decree against the 1st defendant and that is all he is entitled to at the present stage. As already pointed out, the criminal case is still pending and the property may still be required by the criminal Court for purposes of the case, for identification and so forth. After the criminal case is over or even pending the criminal case, it is open to the criminal Court to make such enquiry as it deems fit and hand over the property to the person entitled to its possession. But so far as the present suit is concerned, in my opinion, it is misconceived and the lower appellate Court was therefore right in non-suiting the plaintiff in so far as he sought reliefs against the 2nd defendant. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed, but having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, I direct each party to bear its own costs. No leave. K.N.R. ------- Appeal dismissed.