2020 PLP 1490 (MLD)
GHULAM MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1490 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1490 (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 2020 PLP 1490 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1490 (MLD) (GHULAM MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khawar Siddique Sahi for Petitioner.
- Yaqoob Ali Chaudhry for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
- 3. Although the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 has defended the impugned judgment and decree, however, I am not inclined to agree with his arguments as from the record it appears that service of the petitioner was not properly effected before passing the impugned judgment.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XLI, Rr. 14, 17 & O. V, R. 20
Publication and service of notice of date for hearing appeal
Scope
Petitioner assailed judgment and decree passed by appellate court whereby appeal was accepted as a consequence of proceedings against the petitioner initiated after he was served only through mode of publication in the newspaper
Appellate court while admitting the case had issued notice to the petitioner through registered post but the report showed that notices had remained un-served and were affixed at the spot
Petitioner was, thereafter, served through publication
No effort was made by the court to serve the petitioner through ordinary mode
Petitioner was neither shown to be served and proceeded against ex-parte nor the impugned judgment and decree appeared to be an ex-parte judgment
Judgment and decree were set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate court for decision afresh.
Judgment & Decree
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J.
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 passed by learned appellate court, whereby appeal filed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was accepted as a consequence of proceedings against the petitioner initiated after the petitioner is stated to have been served only through mode of publication in the newspaper vide order dated 14.06.2017.
2. The previous order dated 02.06.2017 passed by appellate court shows that while admitting case, notices were issued to the petitioner through ordinary mode, registered envelope A.D. and publication in daily "Insaf' for 14.06.2017. The report shows that notices had remained unserved and were affixed at the spot and the petitioner had been served through publication in daily "Insaf". However, it does not appear that any effort was made by the court to serve the petitioner through ordinary mode, therefore, I am not inclined to agree that proper service of notices had taken place and consequently also do not agree with the impugned judgment for the reason that neither the petitioner was shown to be served and proceeded against ex-parte nor the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 appears to be an ex-parte judgment.
3. Although the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 has defended the impugned judgment and decree, however, I am not inclined to agree with his arguments as from the record it appears that service of the petitioner was not properly effected before passing the impugned judgment.
4. In view of the above, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the impugned judgment and decree ) dated 01.07.2017 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate court where the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall be deemed to be pending with a direction to decide the same afresh preferably within three months after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Both the parties shall appear before the District and Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 28.10.2019 who shall assign the matter to the court of competent jurisdiction for its decision afresh.
5. In the foregoing terms, instant petition is allowed. SA/G-4/L Case remanded.