2004 PLP 741 (YLR)

Muhammad Chottay Khan v. Muhammad Munir Khan 1990 CLC 1057. Muhammad Hussain v. Farzand Ali PLD 1976 Lahore 1173. Jalal Din and another v. Major Muhammad Akram Khan PLD 1963 Lahore

596. Messrs A.R. Bhuiyan & Co. Ltd. v. Messrs Centrotex Foreign Trading Corporation PLD 1968 Dacca

779. Mian Muhammad Atta Ullah v. D.C., Layallpur and others PLD 1967 Lahore 1072. Muhammad Rafique v. Qamar Ali and 8 others 2003 MLD

52. Mst. Parveen Begum v. Habib Gul and another 1997 MLD 2473. Fazal Din and others v. Barkat Bibi PLD 1978 Lahore 1016. Mst. Shamero v. Sardaraz Khan and others PLD 2001 Peshawar

54. Municipal Committee, Pattoki v. Muhammad Anwar 1982 CLC

910. He further submits that impugned order was passed by this Court on 20-4-1999 and petitioners have filed review application after three years and one month. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed as time-barred. He further submits that the petitioners had made concocted story qua the knowledge of the impugned order dated 20-4-1999 that the petitioners received copy of the impugned order on 29-4-2002. He further submits that notices were sent by this Court to the respondents/petitioners (No.19973, dated 21-5-1998 and No.21720, dated 2-6-1998.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that service of respondents/present petitioners did not effect as is evident from the file of the case notices were sent to the respondents/petitioners which were not returned to the office as the notice mentioned by the learned counsel of the respondents did not have any endorsement qua the service of the petitioners/respondents. It is also settled principle of law that principles of C.P.C. are applicable in Constitutional proceedings as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1970 SC

1. It is admitted fact that the petitioners/respondents having not been duly served, therefore, review application filed by the petitioners is within time from the date of knowledge. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- Rehman v. Hussain Bakhsh 1987 CLC 1257. Muhammad Bakhsh v. Rab Nawaz NLR 1994 Appeal Cases

456. Mst. Sardaran Begum v. Muhammad Fazal 1993 CLC 2303. Dil Muhammad v. Additional District Judge 1991 MLD 2068. Hashim v. Syed Akhtar Ali Shah 1993 MLD 889: Sibat Ullah Khan v. Pirzada Noor Ullah PLD 1993 Peshawar

90. The service of the petitioners/respondents was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by Syed Mazhar Ali Shah v. Shah Muhammad 1990 MLD 1070.

6. In view of what has been discusses above, we are of the view that the service of the petitioners/respondents was nor effected. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20-4-1999 is hit by the principle of natural justice as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Crescent Sugar Mills v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1982 Lahore 1.

7. In view of what has been stated above, this review application is accepted and the impugned order dated 20-4-1999 is set aside. Office is directed to fix main Constitutional petition before appropriate Bench after notice 'to the parties in the writ petition. H.B.T./M-2151/L Review application accepted.