Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115 (1) , 10-A , 20 , 13

Civil Procedure Code (V of 19013)-- ----S. 115(1), proviso, O.V, Rr.10-A & 20 & O.IX, R.13---Revision---Service of petitioner through citation in the newspaper was quite perfect---Summons were also sent to the petitioner through registered post---Onus to prove the issues that. application for setting aside ex parte decree passed against petitioner by Trial Court was within time and whether there were sufficient reasons for setting aside the ex parte decree was on the petitioner---Petitioner, however, appeared as witness in proof of such issues and also produced one witness, yet he had not annexed the certified copies of the statement made by him and of the statements made by witnesses produced by him with the application for revision---Held, it was not possible for High Court, in revision, to appreciate as to whether the petitioner was not properly served and whether or not there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance before the Trial Court. Sh. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Petitioner. ORDER Musarrat Ara respondent filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 24,500 as value thereof, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Lahore. The defendant was semmoned through the process-server. Summons were also sent through registered post. The case was repeatedly adjourned for his appearance. He was served through citation in the newspaper but he failed to appear before the Court, so he was proceeded against ex parte and the suit was decreed ex parte on 17-12-1986. On 25-4-1987, the defendant-petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree on the ground that the summons were not properly served and the plaintiff-respondent had given his incomplete and wrong address in her suit. The application was resisted. The trial Court framed following issues:- (i) Whether the application is within time?   Whether there are sufficient reasons for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 17-12-1986? Relief. The petitioner led his evidence. Since the respondent failed to produce her evidence despite repeated adjournments, so her evidence was closed. The trial Court dismissed the…