MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Rana SOHAIL ANJUM O — 2022 CLC 1529 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS Rana SOHAIL ANJUM O.V, Rr.17, 19, 20 & O.IX, Rr. 6 & 13---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by respondents---One of the petitioner/defendant was pleaded ex-parte while another two defendants contested the said suit---Respondents' suit was decreed by Trial Court---Petitioner moved application for setting aside ex-parte decree---Petitioner's application was concurrently dismissed by Courts below---Validity---Petitioner was summoned in the suit by issuing notices instead of summons---Process Server reported on the back of notice that date of the case was so close that service could not take place---On the notice it was reported that the petitioner was out of city for his important work, therefore, the order could not be complied with---Trial Court without considering the reports of the process server, observed that the service was not possible through ordinary mode and directed that he be summoned through citation in the newspaper---Name of the petitioner was wrongly reflected on the newspaper and postal certificate was also not available on the file about posting of the newspaper at the address of petitioner---Summons was not duly served upon the petitioner---Petitioner had not been served properly and the substituted service was defective in the eye of law---Admittedly the petitioner was an illiterate rustic villager having no access to the newspaper---Nothing on the file to demonstrate that the petitioner had the knowledge of proceedings pending against him but he intentionally failed to appear---Relevant order of Trial Court did not demonstrate that it had made its satisfaction that the petitioner had been avoiding his service---Provisions of O.V, Rr. 17, 19 & 20 of Civil Procedure Code had been seriously violated in the case and the failure to comply with any of the requirements thereof would nullify the whole proceedings---Trial Court could not have resorted to substitute service on the basis of a sketchy/erroneous/illegal report submitted by the Process Server---Respondents could not establish that the petitioner had the knowledge of the date of hearing---Trial Court also failed to record any such reason that the petitioner had the knowledge of the date of hearing---Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Rana SOHAIL ANJUM O — 2022 CLC 1529 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLC