CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY vs ABDUL HAMEED O — 2025 CLC 797 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.

CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY VS ABDUL HAMEED O. V, Rr.19 & 20---Mode of service to summon defendant(s)---Substituted service, resorting to---Scope---Examination of service officer---Scope---Appellant/defendant assailed ex-parte proceeding/decree as the Trial Court rejected application to set-aside the same---Validity---Record divulged that the Trial Court ordered to issue notices to the appellants (National Highway Authority) subject to deposit of process fee and Talbana by the plaintiff (land-owner/respondent) but the same was not deposited despite grant of different dates and the Trial Court without considering the same resorted to substituted service through publication of court notice in the newspaper---Even if it is presumed that the process purportedly issued for the service upon the appellants was served or refused to be accepted, the Trial Court, before resorting to substituted service under R. 20 of O. V, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), could satisfy itself by recording statement of the process server as required under R. 19 of the O. V of the C.P.C.---When the position remained as such, the act of the Court in resorting to substituted service could not be said to be more than an illegality and nullity in the eye of law---It is a settled principle of law that unless all efforts to effect service in the ordinary manner are verified to have failed, substitute service cannot be resorted to---Thus, the orders for substitute service were passed in a mechanical fashion and without proper application of mind---Such orders were passed without ascertaining the reasons for non-service and without verifying the factum as to whether all other modes of service were exhausted and were rendered futile---In such circumstances the substituted service being in violation of the law/Rule could not be deemed to be valid service---Therefore, when the basic order for initiating ex-parte proceedings against the appellants had no backing of law and had been passed without adopting due process of law, the superstructure and edifice built thereon i.e. subsequent ex-parte decree could not stand because if the same was allowed to hold field, it would definitely infringe the appellants' inalienable right of defending the case and would amount to condemning the appellants without affording an opportunity of hearing---Said fact was sufficient to condone the delay in filing the application under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C.---High Court set-aside impugned judgment and decree and ex-parte proceeding order; consequently, the application under O. IX, R. 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, moved by the appellants stood allowed, and Trial Court was directed to proceed with the reference after obtaining reply from the appellant and conclude the same---Appeal , filed by Acquiring Agency, was allowed, in circumstances.

CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY vs ABDUL HAMEED O — 2025 CLC 797 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC