| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2993 2004 SLD 2993 2004 PLD 45 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2003, Dated: 26th February, 2004, heard on: 17th February, 2004.
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, JUSTICE AND CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, JUSTICE
Muhammad Yunus Tahir, Advocate for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, Advocate for
Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2003, Dated: 26th February, 2004, heard on: 17th February, 2004.
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, JUSTICE AND CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, JUSTICE
Muhammad Yunus Tahir, Advocate for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, Advocate for
Respondents.
CH. MUHAMMAD ALTAF AND another
VS
MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND 9 OTHERS --RespondentS
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---.--- ---.--- S. 42---.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.V, R.20. and O.IX, R.13---.---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42---.---Suit for declaration---.---Substituted service ---.--- Ex parte decree, setting aside of---.---Out of three defendants, one had admitted claim of plaintiffs and on request of plaintiffs service upon remaining two defendants was effected through proclamation---.---Both said defendants having failed to appear in the Court on the date fixed in the proclamation, they were proceeded against ex parte and ex parte decree was passed in favour of plaintiffs and against said defendants---.---Trial Court, on application by one of said defendants and descendants of other defendant who had died, for setting aside ex parte decree, recalled the said decree and on filing appeal by plaintiffs against . of Trial Court, Appellate Court remanded the case for fresh decision after taking evidence of the parties , Appeal filed by defendants against order of Appellate Court before High Court, was allowed and remand order passed by Appellate Court was set aside---.---Plaintiffs filed appeal before Supreme Court against of High Court---.---One of the said two defendants admittedly was not alive at the time of filing of suit by plaintiffs and death of said defendant was very well in the knowledge of plaintiffs, but despite that plaintiffs hid requested that he be summoned through proclamation alongwith other defendant---.---Validity---.---Under Code of Civil Procedure no suit could be filed on behalf of a dead person or against a dead person and substituted service through proclamation was the last resort which could be adopted in a case where defendants could not be served through other means provided in C.P.C.---.---Other defendant who was alive was resident of a little town and could have been summoned through ordinary means provided in C.P.C., but he was also summoned through proclamation which was illegal exercise of jurisdiction on part of Trial Court Since dead defendant was also summoned through proclamation, decree obtained against a dead person was nullity in the eye of…
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