1988 PLP 2013 (CLC)

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Elaborate order passed by Appellate Court below, justified in law and based on evidence on record was refused to be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction as petitioner was unable to point out any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect in such order. M. Akmal SaUmi for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1987. The petitioners, Muhammad Afzal and another, have moved this Constitutional Petition praying therein that the impugned order dated 30‑7‑1987 passed by respondent No.l may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence, and further that the order dated 31‑7‑1985 passed by respondent No.2 may be restored.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners moved an eviction petition for ejectment of the respondent No.3, Muhammad Inayat, from the property in question. Notice (Annexure All) was issued for the service of respondent No.3, but the same was received back unserved with the remarks that respondent No.3 has refused to accept service and thereafter the said notice was pasted on the door of the house of respondent No.3. Later on the notice for the service of the said respondent was published in a newspaper vide Annexure 'B'. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller proceeded ex parte and recorded the statement of the witnesses of the plaintiff‑petitioners. The learned Rent Controller after recording the ex parte evidence proceeded to pass an order of ejectment against respondent No.3. However, three months' time was allowed to respondent No.3 for vacation of the premises in question. Respondent No.3 went in appeal before the learned appellate Court who heard and accepted the same vide his judgment dated 30‑7‑1987. The learned appellate Court accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller for decision on merits. As stated earlier, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Gujrat vide Annexure 'E'.

3. Learned counsel argued that it is established on record that respondent No.3 is a defaulter in the payment of rent. It is maintained that respondent No.3 intentionally avoided to appear before the learned Rent Controller and that the learned Rent Controller was justified in law to pass an ex parte order of ejectment of the respondent. 4. 1 have heard the learned counsel I am not convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the learned District Judge has written very elaborate judgment dealing with each and every point raised before him by the' parties. It was held by the learned appellate Court that the notice was not duly served upon respondent No.3 and further that his correct address was not at all given in the ejectment petition itself. The learned appellate Court further observed in the impugned order that full particulars of the property in question were also missing from the ejectment petition. I have given my anxious thoughts to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I do not find any substance therein. The impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Gujrat is justified in law and has been passed on evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity, much less the jurisdictional defects in the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate Court. Resultantly, this petition being' devoid of force is dismissed. H . B . T. /M‑542/ L Petition dismissed.