1993 PLP 660 (CLC)

(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115 & O.IX, R. 7‑‑‑Setting aside ex parte proceedings against Government‑‑‑Suit for damages involving enormous amount of fifteen (15) crore rupees‑‑‑Government must be afforded adequate opportunity to put in defence and contest claim of plaintiff‑‑‑High Court in the larger interest of justice exercised its discretionary powers and set aside ex parte order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Gulzar Aimed Qureshi for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.l, although he has personally been served. About the rest of respondents there is a report that they are not putting up at their stated addresses. All of them being police officers/officials, they might have been shifted to different places, but they are all pro forma respondents. Even in the proceedings in the lower Court Mian Khan SI alone had entered appearance. Single handedly he could not obviously contest his liability, as it was joint liability of all the defendants in the suit, who had allegedly caused harassment and humiliation, insult and agony to the plaintiff, Ch. Parvez Ahmed, who had brought a civil action for recovery of damages amounting to 15 crore rupees.

2. Province of Punjab, defendant No.10 in the suit, had been proceeded against ex parte, and had applied for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, Chaudhry Saeed Aimed. rejected the application on 28‑6‑1992. It is this order that has been impugned by way of the present revision petition. I have briefly heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Manifestly the person interested in resisting this petition is the plaintiff, namely, Ch. Parvez Ahmed, respondent No.l, who has opted to absent himself, despite personal service. Although in the opinion of the learned trial Judge, defendant No.10 had sufficiently been served, I would hold otherwise. It is the practice of Courts not to send to Government departments and to the Collector representing the Province copies of plaints/petitions/memoranda of appeal, and only a simple notice is addressed to the Department of the Government functionary concerned which/who especially due to rush of work, just does not know as to what is the nature of the litigation involving it/him, requiring its/his participation. Whether it was a process sent through ordinary means, or through a registered envelope, or it was a telegram addressed to defendant No.10, the same is never claimed to have been accompanied by a copy of the plaint, which, in my opinion, was a must. Unless this condition was fulfilled, there was no justification in ordering substituted service. There is an assertion that a notice had also been published in the daily Muslim.

4. It is thus clear that the learned lower Court had committed a material irregularity, in refusing to accede to the request of the 4pfendant‑petitioner for permission to appear and defend the suit. It is so well known that Government officials either join hands with litigants or otherwise they display sheer negligence in attending to Court cases, and the cause of the Government goes by default with the result that very vital public interests are jeopardised, entailing miscarriage of justice. Although both sides (including the Government) are entitled to equal treatment before a Court of law, it would not be against and. principle of fair play, or any accepted norm of natural justice, if the Court does not permit evil designs or ulterior motives of public servants to play their vicious or mischievous role in such matters, or if the Court takes notice of inefficiency, collusion or carelessness on the part of crooked or indolent officials, with a view to safeguard ultimate ends of justice and advance cause of public good, to achieve with Courts also evidently function. It is another matter that the Government departments or the corporate bodies involved should also not let such dishonest or negligent officials escape the liability of the penalty, to be incurred by them, by reasons of such serious lapses on their part.

5. It is a suit for damages, with a claim of an enormous amount of 15 crore rupees, and the Province must be afforded an adequate opportunity to put in defence and contest the claim of the plaintiff. In the larger interests of justice, therefore, I would exercise my discretionary powers under section 115, C.P.C. and set aside the impugned order dated 22‑6‑1992, by accepting the Civil revision. The petition succeeds, and is allowed, although with no order as to costs. A copy of this order shall be conveyed to the trial Court and the records shall be remitted without delay, so that the proceedings there are not held up.???????? AA./P‑44/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.