Law:

Section:

In furtherance of the order of this Court dated 25-1-1990 learned counsel files today a certified copy of the order sheet in Suit No. 161 of 1988 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sanghar and a similar copy of the case diary from 29-9-1988 to 12-7-1989.

 A perusal of these documents together with the record of this Revision application would indicate that on 20-10-1988 a Bailiff of the Court, in respect of process issued for 6-11-1988, verified a report stating that the respondent No. 1, when attempted to be served, was stated by her son, who had come out of the house, to have gone to Karachi and such son refused to accept the process for her.

 However, on 6-11-1988 such report was not submitted before the Court and the case was adjourned to 12-12-1988 for return of process. On 12-12-1988, the learned Court without applying its mind on the question whether the refusal had taken place by the respondent No. 1 herself or while she was in the house, ordered that registered A.D. process be issued and the summons be served by affixation thereof at the last known address of the respondent No. 1. This was required to be done for 8-1-1989, which was fixed to be the next date of hearing. On 8-1-1989 the learned Court did not advert to the question of registered A.D. process at all and on the basis of affixation of the process directed the case to proceed ex parte and adjourned it to 12-1-1989. Even at the present stage it is not known as to what happened to registered A.D. process.