| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLD 754 =1 996 CLC 1300 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petitions Nos. S-26 and S-27 of 1992, decided on 25th January, 1996, -
Presented By: Before Shaft Muhammadi, J
Moinuddin Ahmed for Petitioner (in C.P. No:26/1992). Muhammad Jamil for Petitioner No.2 (in C.P. No.27/1992). Muhammad Anwar Tariq for
Respondent No.3. Ch. I Iqbal for A.-G., Sindh.
Constitutional Petitions Nos. S-26 and S-27 of 1992, decided on 25th January, 1996, -
Presented By: Before Shaft Muhammadi, J
Moinuddin Ahmed for Petitioner (in C.P. No:26/1992). Muhammad Jamil for Petitioner No.2 (in C.P. No.27/1992). Muhammad Anwar Tariq for
Respondent No.3. Ch. I Iqbal for A.-G., Sindh.
JAVAID AKHTAR---Petitioner
VERSUS
IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (SOUTH), KARACHI and 2 others---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 13 , 12(2) , 199
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.IX, R. 13 & S. 12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-- Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Setting aside ex pane decree .on ground of defective service of summons---Remedy---Irregularity in service of summons could be assailed under O.IX, R. 13, C.P.C. for purpose of getting any decree set aside---Provision of S. 12(2), C.P.C. would not be applicable in such case---Provisions of O.IX, R. 13 and S. 12(2), C.P.C. should be .read independently on account of the fact that limitation period of two provisions is different---Where alleged service of summons was defective and ex parte decree had been granted, if same was not set aside by Court under O.IX, R. 13, C.P.C., order of dismissal could have been challenged in higher forum---Such order having remained unchallenged had attained finality and afterwards could not have been challenged under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Such final order also could not be challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art. 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R. 13---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Order of dismissal of application against ex parte decree attaining finality by not filing revision/appeal against such order---High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution does not sit as Court of appeal or revision---Shield of Constitutional jurisdiction by superior Court can be used to save any unfortunate person from arrows of illegalities or irregularities, if thrown by subordinate Courts without any lawful authority, provided aggrieved person had been vigilant about his statutory duties---Constitutional jurisdiction, however, cannot be invoked to wash away effects of negligence---Order in question having attained finality by inaction of petitioner, same could not be challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction after lapse of years. Shakoor Hussain v. Muhammad Sadiq 1991 MLD 67; Muhammad Cic Swaleh v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies PLD 1964 SC 97…