1990 PLP 230 (MLD)
ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 230 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 230 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 230 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 230 (MLD) (ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Khurshid Alam for Appellant.
- Karim Nawaz for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O.V, R.10, S.96 & O.XXXVII, R.1‑‑Service of summons‑‑Mode‑‑Service of summons is to be effected by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer as appointed by him in his behalf and sealed with the seal of Court‑‑Where service of summons was denied and process‑server had nowhere stated in his report that copy of summons was delivered to the defendant, presumption would be, that defendant was not properly served‑‑Trial Court had no justification to reject the application for leave to defend the suit as barred by time and decree the suit on account of default of defendant to file application for leave to defend the suit within ten days of service of summons, where he was not served with summons in accordance with law‑‑Judgment and decree of trial Court was set aside by High Court in appeal and case was sent back to Trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 17th October, 1989. On 5‑5‑1987 Abdul Aziz respondent filed a suit for, the recovery of Rs.21,000 on the basis of pronote against Allah Bakhsh appellant in the Court of learned District Judge, Bhakkar. The trial Court issued summons to the defendant/appellant in Form‑4 Appendix 'B' for 15‑6‑1987. The summons were served on him on 12‑5‑1987. He failed to appear and apply for leave to defend the suit within 10 days of the service of the summons. On 16‑6‑1987, he submitted application for leave to defend, which was declined and the suit was decreed on 25‑6‑1987 against him.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since copy of the summons was not delivered to the defendant/appellant, therefore, the summons were not properly served. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He maintained that from the report of the process‑server it is very much clear that the summons were actually served on the respondent on 12‑5‑1987.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. The relevant provision of law may be reproduced advantageously. Rule 10, Order V, C.P.C. "Service of the summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer as he appoints in his behalf, and sealed. with the seal of the Court." The process‑server has nowhere stated in his report that copy of the summons was delivered to the defendant. He was examined by the trial Court. He stated: He further stated In view of the statement made by the Process Server, it can safely be said e[hat the defendant/appellant was not properly served. That being the position, there was no justification for the trial Court to reject the application for leave to defend the suit, as barred by time and decree the suit on account of the default of the defendant/appellant to file application for leave to defend the suit within 10 days of service of summons. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs. A.A./A‑773/L. Case remanded.