| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 2647 2003 SLD 2647 2003 CLC 1233 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision Petition No. 45 of 2002, decision dated: 7-03-2003.
FAZLUR REHMAN KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision Petition No. 45 of 2002, decision dated: 7-03-2003.
FAZLUR REHMAN KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Haji MUHAMMAD ALI
VS
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXVII, R.2---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.159---Suit for recovery of amount on the basis of pronote---Application to appear and defend the suit---Trial Court allowed application of defendant to appear and defend the suit---Plaintiff challenged such order of Trial Court on two grounds, firstly; that application filed by defendant was barred by three days and for condonation of said delay no plausible explanation was offered by the defendant and secondly; that said application was not supported by any affidavit---First ground taken by the plaintiff was without force for the reasons; that service of summons on defendant through substituted service in a newspaper, was a weak type of service and could not be equated with personal service---Words "when the summons is served" appearing in Column No.3.of Art. 159 of Limitation Act, 1908, apparently would mean personal service for purpose of O.XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C. and giving it here any other meaning would lead to miscarriage of justice---Publication of summons in the daily newspaper had shown that same did not substantially conform to `summons in Form No.4 of Appendix `B', C.P.C.---Procedure under O.XXXVII, C.P.C. was of summary nature for which Special Form of summons had been prescribed by. O.XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C. vide Form No.4, Appendix `B', C.P.C. and provisions of said rule were mandatory in nature and for non-compliance of which by Court, defendant could not be punished---Where law had prescribed a thing to be done in a particular manner, doing of that act in any other manner would amount to illegality---Other ground of plaintiff that application to appear and defend suit was not supported by any affidavit, was also without force, because though said application was not supported by an affidavit but later on defendant had filed same without any objection from plaintiff---Defect, if any, stood cured, in circumstances---Application to appear and defend suit, in circumstances, was rightly accepted by Trial Court. PLD 1984 Kar. 252 and PLJ 2002 Pesh. 17 ref. (b) Practice and procedure--- ---Where law had prescribed a thing to be done in a particular manner, doing 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