Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---O. VII, R.2 , O. V & O.IX, R.13---Suit for recovery---Trial Court passed ex parte decree against defendant and dismissed the application for setting aside ex parte decree---Defendant contended that notices were not served on him in accordance with provisions of O. V, C.P.C.-Validity---Provisions of O. V, C. P. C. were not complied with for service of defendant---Decisions on merit were cherished goals of law and technicalities thwarting dispensation of justice needed to be discouraged to promote natural justice so that no one was condemned unheard---Ex parte judgment and decree against the defendant and dismissal of his application for setting aside ex parte decree were not in accordance with law---Case should have been decided on merits---Ex parte decree was set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court with direction to decide the case within four months and consider the presence of defendant as a party in whose absence the court would not be able to pass a valid order. Mohd Siddique Haider Qureshi for Appellant. Ghulam Jan Niazi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th April, 2010. JUDGMENT MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---Through the instant regular first appeal, the impugned herein by the defendant/appellant is judgment/order, dated 18-2-2009 of learned Civil Judge-VII, Kohat whereby application of the appellant for setting aside ex part decree was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellant was not served in accordance with the provisions of Order V, C.P.C., so the ex part decree passed against him is against natural justice and nullity in the eye of law. He further submitted that on getting knowledge of the same, his application for setting aside of the above said decree was also not dealt with in accordance with law and the same was dismissed in a cursory and slipshod manner by the learned Civil Judge without providing him the chance of proof of his contentions raised in the application. 3. As on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ decree-holder submitted that the appellant was well aware of the decree passed against him and he…