MUHAMMAD AURANGZEB vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI S — 2024 MLD 455 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 AURANGZEB VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI S.12(2), O.V, Rr.16, 18, 19, 20 & 25 & O.IX---Ordinary mode(s) of service, non-compliance of---Substituted service through publication in newspaper---Scope and effect---Application under S. 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, moved by the defendants seeking annulment of the ex-parte decree against them, was accepted by the Trial Court and the revision petition filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners was dismissed by the Appellate Court---Contention of the petitioners was that since the defendants/ /respondents did not appear despite publication, so the Trial Court had rightly proceeded against them ex-parte, and that ex-parte decree was passed after observing all the codal formalities---Validity---Record revealed that the suit was instituted at Rawalpindi by the petitioners /plaintiffs mentioning that the respondents/ defendants were residents of Azad Kashmir---It appeared that initially for procuring the attendance of the respondents/ defendants, Trial Court directed the issuance of process but summons could not be issued due to non-deposit of process fee by the petitioners/plaintiffs, but, instead of proceeding against the petitioners on account of their failure to deposit the process fee, the Trial Court opted to issue proclamation in the newspaper under O.V, R.20 of C.P.C., 1908 as a mode of substituted service---Though O.V, R.20 of C.P.C., 1908 provided the mechanism of substituted service but before resorting to said provision of law it was incumbent upon the Court to first ensure the adherence to Rr. 16, 18 & 19 of O.V of the C.P.C, 1908---Provisions of Rr. 16, 18 & 19 of O.V of the C.P.C., 1908 were not illusory and it was bounden duty of the Court to make substantial compliance of the same before directing the substituted service in terms of O.V, R. 20 of C.P.C., 1908---Court for the said purpose had to satisfy itself that all the efforts to effect service in the ordinary mode had failed---Non-adherence to the mandatory provisions would render the process invalid and the edifice built thereon would automatically fall down---Respondents were ,admittedly, residing abroad since long---Rule 25 of O.V of C.P.C., 1908, dealt with service where defendant resided out of Pakistan---Glimpse of record made it abundantly clear that proper procedure was not observed in the course of effecting service of the respondents---No active or concrete effort was made for personal service---Resort to the substituted service in the circumstances was not only highly unwarranted but sketchy---Process of service was thus on the one hand tainted with procedural material irregularities and on the other fraught with illegalities---Thus, it was apparent that on the basis of invalid substituted mode of service the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte who were residing in England since long---Parties were though closely related but the petitioners did not mention the addresses of respondents abroad---Respondents were, thus, proceeded against ex-parte in an illegal and unlawful manner, which followed the ex-parte decree---On attaining the knowledge, the respondents moved a petition under S. 12(2), C.P.C., 1908 seeking annulment of the ex-parte decree on the ground that it was obtained through misrepresentation----There were sufficient grounds to show that ex-parte proceedings order followed by the ex-parte decree was not the outcome of due course of law---That was the reason that the Trial Court, in the first instance, allowed the petition under S.12(2) of the C.P.C., 1908 and set aside the ex-parte proceedings order as well as decree, which was further affirmed by the Appellate Court and rightly so---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 455 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD AURANGZEB VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI art.199(1)(a)(ii)---Writ of certiorari---Scope---Writ of certiorari in terms of art.199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution has a very limited scope---Petitioners, in order to persuade the Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction, have to demonstrate that the order or judgment being assailed is without lawful authority and suffers with material illegalities.

MUHAMMAD AURANGZEB vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI S — 2024 MLD 455 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD