| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2144 2011 SLD 2144 2011 YLR 615 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 659 with C.M. No. 704 of 2010, decided on 27th September, 2010. DATE of hearing: 10th August, 2010
SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J
Hassan Afridi for Petitioner. Khalil Ullah for
Respondent
Civil Revision No. 659 with C.M. No. 704 of 2010, decided on 27th September, 2010. DATE of hearing: 10th August, 2010
SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J
Hassan Afridi for Petitioner. Khalil Ullah for
Respondent
TAHIR MEHMOOD AFRIDI
VS
MUHAMMAD DAYAR
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. V, Rr.9, 10, 10A, & 20---Service of Summons---Defendant filed application for setting aside ex parte decree on second day of his arrival from abroad on the ground that for the last three years, he was out of country and on his return, he came to know by his son about the ex parte decree---Application of defendant was concurrently dismissed by both courts below---Record revealed that application was made by the plaintiff, wherein, he had stated that the defendant was residing within the jurisdiction of the court and wilfully avoiding the process of service directed by the court, so the publication be made in the "Daily Mashriq"---After using due and reasonable diligence, if the serving official could not find the defendant and when there was no agent to accept service of summons on his behalf the serving official then should affix copy of summons on the outer door and some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resided or carried on business---Plaintiff was in the knowledge of address of the defendant, however, wilfully avoided to furnish the same, which was an obvious violation of O. V, Rr.9, 10 & 10A, C.P.C. because the plaintiff was bound to furnish the correct address along with AD Card for service by post to the defendant---Plaintiff had failed to comply with the direction of the court and the court had also under misconception and without adhering to the said provisions of law passed the direction for publication in press under O. V, R. 20, C.P.C.---No due service of defendant was produced---High Court set aside the and decree passed by Trial Court maintained by Appellate Court, being unlawful, without jurisdiction and remanded the case to Trial Court with direction to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, providing opportunity of hearing to both parties, and then to decide suit within a period not later than six months positively, after receipt of the record. 1985 SCMR 1228; 1992 CLC 1553; 1986 CLC 6 and 2005 SCMR 609 ref. Syed Muhammad Anwar v. Sheikh Abdul Haq 1985 SCMR 1228; Dharam Chand Gain v. Kanak Sarkar AIR 1921 Calcutta 63; NBP v. Bawani Industries…
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