1. ' This revision application has been directed against the order, dated 26-10-1998, passed by the learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, South, whereby the custody of vehicle on Superdari was declined to the applicant.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the vehicle Toyota Land Cruiser bearing Registration No,BC- 8773, was purchased by the applicant from one Anwar Ali son of Illahi Bux Chacher. The applicant had applied for registration and he was playing it upon the provisional number issued by the Excise and Taxation Motor Registration Cell, Karachi.
3. ' On 19-10-1998, the vehicle was snatched by the robbers when it was parked outside the house in Clifton Karachi. Such F.I.R. Was lodged by the Driver of the applicant as Crime No,349 of 1998, at Police Station, Clifton Karachi South, under section 392/34, P.P.C. The vehicle i,e, subject-matter of present revision application was secured by the C.I.A. Police, Civil Lines, Karachi, on 26-9-1998 and was handed over to Police Station,, Clifton on 29-9-1998.
4. ' The applicant applied to the learned trial Court for release of vehicle on Superdari, but his request was turned down on the ground that no record was produced to substantiate that original owner Anwar Ali had sold the vehicle to the applicant. It was further ordered that since Anwar Ali is the actual owner, therefore, applicant has got no locus standi to apply for the restoration of vehicle.
5. ' In view of the above order, the applicant approached the seller of vehicle, and again applied to the trial Court for release of vehicle but that request was also not allowed on the ground that he i,e, seller had already sold the vehicle to the present applicant.
6. ' After dismissal of the two applications stated hereinabove, the said Anwar Ali filed Cr. Rev. No,104 of 1998 before this Court but it was not allowed for the reason that present applicant (Sikandar Ali) who is admittedly purchaser of the vehicle did not challenge the order rejecting application for restoration of the vehicle passed by the trial Court. It was in these circumstances that the present application was preferred by the applicant for restoration of his vehicle.
7. ' I have heard Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Saad, learned counsel on behalf of A.-G. For the State. Latter conceded to the prayer for restoration of vehicle to the applicant on Superdari.
8. It is an admitted position that applicant is purchaser of vehicle from Anwar Ali. On the application of applicant, the learned trial Court observed that since Anwar Ali is the registered owner, therefore, applicant is not entitled to the custody of vehicle. It is a matter of great concern that when said Anwar All applied for custody, of his vehicle his prayer was also declined on the ground that he had sold the said vehicle to the present applicant. Thus, the findings of the Court below were in conflict with each other and totally inconsistent.
9. Apart from that, there is no other claimant to the vehicle in question. Anwar All had himself filed affidavit in support of application wherein he stated that he had sold the vehicle to the applicant, therefore, applicant is entitled to custody of the vehicle.
10. ' The learned trial Court has also lost sight of the fact that the F.I.R. With regard to snatching of vehicle was lodged by the driver of the applicant. This shows that it was lastly in possession of applicant through his driver. Even on this aspect of the matter applicant was entitled to its custody and particularly when no objection was given by Anwar Ali from whom it was purchased.
11. ' In the matter where valuable and perishable property is involved or where there is apprehension that property can be misused, damaged or its utility is likely to be diminished, in such a situation/circumstances, Courts should be more vigilant and on guard to save the property from devastation. The technicalities or delay on the part of the Court may cause hardship or irreparable loss to the parties to the proceedings, which may be avoided so that confidence of people in the Courts should remain intact. Red-tapism has always proved disastrous and courts are meant to impart justice according to the settled principles of law and they are not supposed to do anything which may cause red-tapism, as red-tapism is a curse for the society.
12. By my short order dated 24-12-1998 I had allowed the above revision and these are the reasons for the said short order.