Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. IX, R. 13, O.V, R. 20, Ss. 12(2) & 151---Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) Rr. 129 & 140---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Application for setting aside of ex parte decree---Substituted service---Scope---Suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of amount, was decreed ex parte against defendant---Contention of defendant was, inter alia, that defendant at no stage had knowledge of the suit and was never served with a summons for the suit---Validity---Substituted service was not the ordinary way of service on a defendant and court had to be satisfied that there was reason to believe that the defendant was keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service and that for any other reason, the summons could not be served in the ordinary way----Plaint of the plaintiff was initially struck off, and prior to its striking off, the plaintiff had failed and / or avoided to pay cost / process fee for issuing of summons and notices---Plaintiff did not take any steps to provide fresh address of defendant, though it was available, for effecting service and therefore, it could not be said that the defendant had deliberately avoided service , and for this reason the plaint was struck off---Subsequently after four and a half years, plaintiff filed application for setting aside of order whereby its plaint was struck off---After restoration of plaint, summons either was not issued to defendant or remained un-served---Publication was not issued as cost was not paid by the plaintiff----In application for substituted service under O. V, R. 20, C.P.C. plaintiff nowhere stated that defendant was keeping out of the way for avoiding service or that for any other reason, summons could not be served in the ordinary way----Article 10-A of the Constitution mandated that civil rights and obligations be adjudicated upon through a fair trial and due process of law---High Court set aside ex parte and decree against defendant, and directed defendant to file written statement within a period of thirty days---Application was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Anwar, Advocate v. Shaikh Abdul Haq 1985 SCMR 1228; Messrs National and…