Muhammad Hanif vs Abdul Razzaq S — 2026 YLR 1316 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 Hanif VS Abdul Razzaq S.12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.13---Suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell---Ex-parte decree, setting aside of---Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement of sale purportedly executed on 10.09.2008---Petitioner/defendant was proceeded against ex-parte on the basis of publication in newspaper and suit was decreed ex-parte on 08.10.2021---Petitioner, on acquiring knowledge of decree, filed an application for setting aside ex-parte decree, which was dismissed---Appeal was filed against the said order but was also dismissed---Validity---Perusal of file proved that no summons was ever served directly and personally on the petitioner either through process server or by registered post A.D.---Admitted position that process server never met the petitioner nor claimed to have reported avoidance to receive the process---Rather reports were to the effect that the petitioner was never found at the place and that allegedly one I and A were delivered the summons by the process server---Deeper analysis of reports and statements of process server showed that no service in accordance with O.V, C.P.C. was ever effected---In the first instance, admittedly no summons was ever alleged to have been delivered to the petitioner or ever presented for service on him---Evidence on record including statement of Process Server showed that he had never met the petitioner for delivery of summons or process of Court and that at the time of reports he never claimed to have met the petitioner nor did he report that petitioner was deliberately avoiding service---In such circumstances, there was no justification for Process Server to deliver the summons to any other person who was not the addressee of summons---Other part of the question was about the alleged delivery of summons to "I" and "A" claimed to be nephew and son of petitioner---Evidence on record could not prove any delivery of summons to those persons, reason being that the Process Server admitted in his cross-examination that he had not written witnesses' identity card number on the report qua those persons nor had he obtained any thumb-impression and that the name of those persons could have been written by anyone---In these circumstances delivery of summons even upon those two persons could not be assumed---Record showed that there was no report of Process Server that petitioner was avoiding service and had refused to accept service in the presence of witnesses nor the report was verified properly nor it gave the time at which Process Server had visited the site for service---Report indicated lack of due diligence and reasonable efforts to obtain service and gave the impression of casual exercise of duties by the Process Server who claimed to have visited the defendant's house and delivered the summons to a person without verification as to whether he had any relationship with the addressee and whether he lived there or was competent to receive the summons---Neither the thumb-impression of the alleged recipient was obtained nor his CNIC number was recorded in the report---Being inadmissible report, the Court could not proceed to pass an order for publication by substituted mode as there was neither any report of avoidance or denial from the receipt of summons---Thus, the whole exercise was unlawful, decree was liable to be set aside---Revision petition was allowed impugned orders were set aside and, in consequence thereof, application filed by petitioner for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings order and ex-parte decree was accepted.

Muhammad Hanif vs Abdul Razzaq S — 2026 YLR 1316 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR