| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1998 SLG 1287 1998 SLD 1287 1998 CLC 657 |
Quetta High Court
Civil Revision No.74 of 1997, decision dated: 27-10-1997
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, J
Ghulam Mustafa Mengal for Petitioners. Mir Aurangzaib for
Respondent
Civil Revision No.74 of 1997, decision dated: 27-10-1997
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, J
Ghulam Mustafa Mengal for Petitioners. Mir Aurangzaib for
Respondent
Haji BANGUL and 13 others
VS
NOOR MUHAMMAD --Respondent
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. V, R.20 & O. IX, R.13--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 164 & 181---Ex parte decree---Application for setting aside such decree was dismissed as being time-barred ---Validity--Substituted service (culminating into ex parte decree) by affixation of notice under O. V, R.20, C.P.C., could only be directed when in ordinary course summons/notice could not be served on defendant or he was deliberately avoiding to receive summons of Court---Summons sent to petitioner (defendant) having not been returned to Court, there was no material available to Court to conclude that petitioners were avoiding service of summons or that they could not be served in ordinary way---Trial Court, thus, was not justified to have ordered service of notice/summons through affixation---Ex parte decree without recording evidence could not have been passed under O, IX, R.6, C.P.C.---Ex parte decree was, therefore, nullity in law---Date fixed by Court was not the date initially fixed upon institution of suit for service of summons on defendants, who failed to appear culminating into passing of ex parte decree---To set aside such ex parte decree, .limitation period of 30 days provided by Art. 164, Limitation Act, 1908, would not be applicable; rather period of limitation of three years prescribed by Art.181, Limitation Act would be applicable--Application in terms of O. IX, R.13, C.P.C., having been filed within period of three years same could not have been dismissed on point of limitation--Impugned order passed by Trial Court as affirmed by Appellate Court whereby application for setting aside ex pane decree was dismissed as being barred by time was set aside and Trial Court was directed to dispose of suit in accordance with law. PLD 1981 SC 21 ref. JUDGMENT By the instant revision petition preferred under section 115, C.P.C., orders, dated 17-12-1995 and 29-8-1996 passed by the Court of Qazi Kharan and order, dated 30-11-1996 passed by the Majlis-e-Shoora, Kalat at Mastung, have been assailed by the petitioners with the prayer that the impugned orders be set aside and the case be remanded to the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492