Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. V, R. 15 [Lahore High Court Amendment] & O. XXXVII Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery was decreed ex parte against the defendant---Service on male member of defendant's family---Substituted service---Scope---Contention of the defendant was that he was never served and therefore the ex parte decree be set aside---Validity---Defendant was served through his real brother and under O. V, Rule 15 C.P.C. [Lahore High Court Amendment]; service through adult male member of the family was complete and it was not contended that he had strained relations with his family or that the brother did not inform the defendant---Property of the defendant was attached and notice was issued to him during execution proceedings and he must have attained knowledge of the ex parte decree---Contention that newspaper proclamation should have been issued was without force as substituted service under O. V, Rule 20 C.P.C. would be resorted to only if it was proved that the defendant was avoiding service or for any other reason the ordinary service was not possible but in the present case the service was effected in accordance with O. V, Rule 15 of the C.P.C. [Lahore High Court Amendment]---Appeal was dismissed. ORDER RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The appellant has assailed the vires of order dated 28-1-2012 passed by the learned ADJ, whereby an application moved by him to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30-9-2010 for recovery of Rs.14,00,000 passed against him in a suit under Order XXVII Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief as emerge on perusal of the record are that the plaintiff/ respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.14,00,000 against the appellant on the basis of Cheque No.152286 dated 17-5-2009 drawn on MCB Dhoke Mangtal, Rawalpindi. It was contended by him that the appellant and another entered into an agreement to sell a plot measuring 10-marlas situated at Dhoke Hassu, Rawalpindi but it subsequently transpired that they had played a fraud and received the disputed amount from him although the plot was not owned by them. The plaintiff/respondent made a request for return of the consideration and on this a…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492