1989 PLP 1394 (CLC)

ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.‑‑By this application the respondent No.l has prayed for the review of the judgment given on 28‑2‑1989. The facts briefly are that the respondent No.l filed the suit against the Official Respondents challenging the mutation made in the Record‑of‑ Rights on the death of Shakoor Bhai, which included the name of the predecessor‑in‑title of the present petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, made an application to be joined as party in the said suit as the decision in the suit would have affected their rights in the suit property and the learned 2nd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi ordered to join them in the suit. This order was challenged by the respondent No.l in a Civil Revision which was allowed by 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi and the orders of 2nd Senior Civil Judge Karachi were set aside. The present petitioners then filed this Constitution Petition which was allowed by the order sought to be reviewed now. We have heard Mr. Z.U. Ahmad the learned counsel for the respondent No.l applicant. He has contended that the respondent No.l was not served with the notice of the petition in accordance with the law and thus the Judgment passed in the present petition is behind his back without giving him an opportunity of being heard and the same is adverse to his interest in the suit. Mr. Z.U. Ahmad has referred to Rule 139 of the Sind Chief Court Rules. The Rule reads as under: "

139. The serving officer shall serve all processes entrusted to him without the aid of the party at whose instance the process is issued and after due enquiry as to the identity of the person on whom, or the house or property where, the same is to be served He has also pointed out to an affidavit of service filed by Allauddin, the petitioner No.4 and the affidavit of Bailiff sworn on 9‑3‑1983 and has argued that the said Bailiff having served the process with the assistance of the petitioner No.4, the said service could not have been held good as it is in conflict with the above‑said Rule

139. It would be advantageous to reproduce here the contents of the affidavit of Bailiff which reads as under: The above sworn statement of Bailiff would show that the said petitioner No.4 had of course accompanied the Bailiff but the identification and service by pasting the notice was effected in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Ashiq Ali and Azizur Rehman the Chowkidar. 1t also shows from the notice and the said statement of the Bailiff that Ashiq Ali has put his signature on the said notice. The affidavit of the petitioner No.4 also mentions the name of said Azizur Rehman the Chowkidar. It will be in fitness of things to make reference to the subsequent Rules i.e. Rules No.140 and 141 of the Sind Chief Court Rules (O.S.) which read as under: "

140. If the serving officer is not personally acquainted with the person to be served, he shall, whenever possible, obtain on the original process the endorsement by signature or thumb‑impression of a respectable person of the locality identifying such person or place of residence or the house or property on which the process served.

141. Where the person to be served refuses to sign the acknowledgement or cannot be found, the serving officer shall, whenever possible, before affixing a copy of the summons on the outer door of the house of such person, obtain on the original process the endorsement by signature or thumb‑impression of at least one respectable person of the locality in support of such fact. From these rules it is clear that for the purpose of identification and service or affixation of copy of summon all that is required is that the Bailiff should do the same in presence of at least one respectable person of the locality and obtain his signature or thumb‑impression. This provision having been complied in the present case and the signature of the said Ashiq Ali having been obtained in the said notice consequently affixation of the notice amounts to proper service as provided under the Rules. This is also in accordance with the provisions of Order V, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. We are, therefore not inclined to uphold the contention of the learned counsel. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel that adverse orders had been passed in the judgment, suffice it to say that by this judgment we have only allowed the present petitioners to be joined in the suit as necessary party since the name of their predecessor in title appeared in the mutation order by the Official Respondents and obviously any decision in the suit would have affected their rights and they could not be condemned unheard. This cannot be said to be the order affecting the rights of respondent No.l the property in dispute in the said suit but this would allow only a fair opportunity to the parties to contest their claim. From the above discussion we find no reasons to review the judgment given earlier in the present petition. The present application moved by the respondent No.1 is dismissed. Above are the reasons for the short order announced by us in Court today. A.A./D‑49/K Review application dismissed