Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 17 , 19 , 20

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. V, Rr. 17, 19 & 20---Order of substituted service---Validity---None of the conditions essential for ordering substituted service were complied with--Process-server who was entrusted with summons to effect service on defendant was not examined by Court as a condition precedent for ordering substituted service---Service was thus, not duly effected on defendant as per requirements of law. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 100---Second appeal---Impugned order by lower Appellate Court was passed in a mechanical fashion as no care was taken even to go through the provisions of law to substantiate the impugned finding---Finding of First Appellate Court was, thus, not sustainable. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. IX, R. 13---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 164---Ex parte decree --Setting aside of ---Starting point of limitation---Limitation of Thirty days for setting aside ex parte decree would start from date of decree where service had been effected---Where due service was not proved to have been effected on the defendant, limitation would start from the date of knowledge of judgment- debtor. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. IX, R. 13 & S. 100---Second appeal---Ex parte decree was passed without effecting due service of summons on defendant and first appeal was within time when counted from the date of knowledge of defendant---First Appellate Court's decision to the effect that appeal had been filed beyond time was not warranted and was set aside---Case was remanded to First Appellate Court for decision on merits. Abdul Ghafoor Qureshi for Appellant. Abdul Latif Dutt for Respondent No.l   ORDER The appeal is addressed against the order of the learned District Judge, Mirpur, passed on December 16, 1902, whereby ex parte decree passed by the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mirpur, on February 29, 1992, was maintained. Mst. Ahmeda Bi, brought a suit for declaration that the power of attorney purported to be executed in favour of Abdul Khaliq, defendant No.1, on April 18, 1990 was fictitious and forged one. It was ineffective on the right and title of the plaintiff in respect…