1991CLC294 (PLP)

(i) Whether the application is within time? (2) Whether there are sufficient reasons for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 17‑12‑1986? (3) Relief. The petitioner led his evidence. Since the respondent failed to produce her evidence despite repeated adjournments, so her evidence was closed. The trial Court dismissed the application on 30‑10‑1989 as barred by time and also on merits. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed by the. learned Addl. District Juage on 9‑5‑1990. Hence this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the defendant‑petitioner was not personally served, ‑therefore, he could file application for setting aside the ex pane decree within 30 days from the date of his knowledge of the decree against him; that there was no justification to reject the evidence of the petitioners more particularly when there was no evidence in rebuttal. 3.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not agree with him. The summons were also sent to the petitioner through registered post. He was also served through citation in the newspaper. In its order dated 8‑9‑1986, the trial Court has stated that:‑ So the order for the service of the petitioner through citation in the newspaper was quite perfect. The onus to prove issues 1 and 2 was on the petitioner. He appeared as a witness in proof of these issues and also produced one witness, yet he has not annexed the certified copies of the statement made by him and of the statements made by the witnesses produced by him with this Revision application though he under the amended provision of section 115, C.P.C. was required to annex the copies of the statements he desired to relie upon. So it is not possible for this Court to appreciate as to whether the petitioner was not properly served and that whether or not there was sufficient cause for his non‑appearance before the trial Court. While discussing issue No.2, the trial Court has stated that‑ "The main reason agitated by the defendant‑petitioner was that he was not properly served on his present postal address i.e. Chak No. 321/J.B. Tehsil Gojra District Toba Tek Singh where he was serving as Veterinary Officer. According to the document Ex.R.2, he was bound to remain at his station of posting day and night. However it has been admitted by him during the course of cross‑examination that his permanent address was of Chak No. 356/J.B. Tehsil Gojra District Toba Tek Singh. It was also admitted by him that Chak No. 356/J.B. was only at a distance of 10 miles from his place of posting. Still further he admitted that he had a motorcycle but he denied that he used to come daily to his place of permanent residence. The excuse put forward by him that he was not residing at his permanent address was not logical. Summons were repeatedly sent on the address of his permanent resident at Chak No. 356/J.B. and eventually an advertisement was made in daily newspaper "Nawa‑e‑Waqat". He was an educated man and was supposed to read newspaper. Thus the evidence led by him on 'this point was not convincing. Although, there was no rebuttal evidence on record yet the defendant petitioner has failed to substantiate this issue by his own evidence. Therefore, this issue stood unsubstantiated and the same is decided against the defendant/petitioner:' There is nothing on the file of this revision application to controvert the aforesaid observations made by the trial Court. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.

4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision application fails and is dismissed in limine. AA./M‑2468/L Revision dismissed.