P L D 1973 Lahore 670 (PLP)

7. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for several methods of service of summons and the service effected in accordance with either of those methods is deemed to be due and proper service upon the defendant. These methods have been discussed in several Orders and some of them are summarised as under:- (a) Personal service. (Order V, rule 12). (b) Service on Agent empowered to accept service. (Order V, rule 12 and Order III, rule 6). (c) Service on recognized Agent of the party. (Order III, rule 3). (d) In a suit relating to any business or work against a person not residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, service on an agent, who personally carries out such business or works for such person. (Order V, rule 13). (e) In a suit to obtain relief respecting immovable property where personal service is not possible or the defendant has no Agent empowered to accept the service, service on any agent of the defendant in charge of the property. (Order V, rule 14). (f) Service on an adult male member residing with the .defendant, where the defendant cannot be found and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf. (Order V, rule 15). (g) Service by affixation (Order V, rule 17). (h) Substituted service. (Order V, rule 20). (i) In suits against corporations, service on the Secretary, or on any Director, or other principal officer of the corporation or by leaving the summons or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. (Order XXIX, rule 2).

8. The methods relevant for the decision of this case are (b) tend (c) described in the foregoing paragraph i.e. service on the recognized agent or on agent empowered to accept service. The Code of Civil Procedure has drawn a distinction between "recognized agents" and "agents appointed or empowered to accept service of processes". Order III, rule 2 defines "recognized agents" as‑ (a) persons holding powers of attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties; or (b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorised to make and do such appearances, applica tions and acts." Order III, rule 3 treats the service of process on the recognized agent as effectual service and is as follows:‑ "3. (1) Processes served on the recognized agent of a patty shall be as effectual as if the same had been served on the party in person, unless the Court otherwise directs."

9. Order III, rule 6 provides for the appointment of "an Agent to accept service of process", as a category different from "a recognized agent".

10. Apart from these general provisions, Order XXVII', makes specific provisions for certain matters in suits by or against the Government, or public officers in their official capacity. Rule 2 of Order XXVII declares certain persons as recognized agents of the Government in the following words:‑ "Persons being ex officio or otherwise authorized to act for the Government in respect of any judicial proceeding shall! be deemed to be the recognized agents by whom appearances, acts and applications under this Code may be made or done on behalf of the Government." Similarly Order XXVII, rule 4 statutorily declares the Government Pleader as the agent of the Government for receiving processes. It provides‑ "The Government Pleader in any Court shall be the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving processes against the Government issued by such Court."

10. The pattern adopted by the Code of Civil Procedure is to provide for some method of appointment of two categories of agents ("Recognized agents" and `agents to receive processes') and to declare certain category of persons as such agents. The general provision about method to appointment of recognized agent is given in Order III, rule 2(a). Order III, rule 2(b) declares persons belonging to a particular category as recognized agents. Order XXVII, rule 2 likewise deals with the mode of appoint ment of 'recognized agents' by authorisation and specifies that persons ex officio authorised to act for Government In respect of any judicial proceeding shall be recognized agents. Similarly method of appointment of an agent to accept service of processes is provided in general in order III, rule 6 while Order XXVII, rule 4 only specifies that in suits by or against Government, the Government Pleader shall be the agent of the Government for receiving processes issued against the Govern ment. It does not give exclusive authority to the Government' Pleader to accept such processes, nor does it indicate even remotely that the Government Pleader is the only officer upon whom a summons issued against Government can be effectively served and that service upon any person other than the Government Pleader would be illegal or invalid. Rules 2 and 4 of Order XXVII deal with the power of 'recognized agent' and 'Government Pleader'. The recognized agent under Order XXVII, rule 2 is authorised to make appearance or application and to act in Court. The Government i leader is empowered to act as 'agent to receive processes'. The question of sufficiency of service of process upon either of them Is dealt with in Order III, rule 3 and Order V, rule 12, C. P. C. and the pro visions of Order XXVII, rules 2 and 4 are to be read with Order 111, rule 3 and Order V, rule 12 respectively. The service upon either of the two categories of agents is sufficient and due service upon the Government.

11. In my view there is no inconsistency or repugnancy between the provisions of Order III, rule 3 on the one hand and Order XXVII, rules 2 and 4 on the other and both these provisions, general as well as special, can co‑exist in harmony with each other.

12. None of these provisions have been considered in the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Mir Mohim Khan and with all respects to the learned Judicial Commissioner, who decid ed that case, I find myself unable to subscribe to the view that the only method of service of summonses on the Government is to serve the Government Pleader. The petitioner was properly served through the Collector on the 18th July 1967, and the application for setting aside the ex paste decree was barred by time.

13. The revision petition fails and is dismissed. As no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, there will be no order as to costs. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.