Notice Of Court appearing | notice of Court hearing | Process of Court notices kese serve hote hain .Notices ka jawab nahi aya yaktarfa ( exparties) decree set aside.

If you've received a notice of a court hearing, it's important to take it seriously. Consider consulting with a lawyer to understand the details and prepare accordingly.

All the process of notices of court notice

Process of court notices

Dear readers Court notices kia hote hain or kio or kese Court inn ko mukhalif fareeq ko serve (send) karti hai.
Jab bhi koi party kisi family cases ya civil ya kisi dosre case main koi case file karti hai .
Court foran defendants (muda elehan) jin ko mudai ne party banaya hota hai talab kar leti hai.
Kisi bhi party ko talab karne ke liye civil ya diwani cases main aik notice serve kia jata hai jiss ki pic zail main lagi hoi hai.

Court notices kin zaraya se send karti hai

Court notices serve karne ke liye ju sab se important zareea hai wo hai process server ke zareea se. Jiss main court ka naminda(baliff )court ke orders per defandant ke ghar ya business jesa ke notices ke ooper mention hota hai serve karta hai.
Or ghar per ja kar matlooba afrad ko notices ki tameel karwai jati hai or reciving per signature karwa liye jate hain.
Agar matlooba shakhas ghar per na mile tu iss ke qareebi azeez per tameel karwa ker us se receiving le li jati hai.
Agar kisi wajah notices ki tameel na hu sake tu court next date per notices ko repeat karti hai.
Wajoohat aksar yeh hoti hain ke adress ka na milna ya address ka ghalat hona ya baliff ko tall dena ya ghar per kisi ka mojod na hona ya lene se inkari.
Ju bhi wajoohat hun court ka baliff likh kar apni report court main jama karwa deta hai
Court notice repeat karne ke baad چسپاندگی ka order karti hai yani notice دیوار پر چسپاں کر دیا جاتا۔
Agar phir bhi defendant pesh na hu tu court اخباراشتہار ka order jari karti hai.
Or agar اخبار اشتہار ke baad bhi parties pesh na hun tu court case ko yaktarfa decree kar deti ha.

Court notice milne ke baad kia karna hai

Court notice milne ke baad aap notice le kar mutalqa court ke staff (ahalmad) se rabta karna hai
Or kuch kharcha kar ke case ki file copy karwa leni hai
Jiss se aap ko case ki noeet ka pata chal jai ga.
Jiss ke baad ap apna Lawyer hire kar sakte hai.
Agar aap ke pass foran lawyer hire karne ke liye raqam ka issue hai tu aap date ke ooper khud pesh hu jain or request kar ke court se Lawyer pesh karne ke liye time bhi le sakte hain.

Exparties decree set aside by High Court

Zair nazar case law main process of notices ko tafseel se bian kia gia hai. Yeh ke log notices ke jawab ka intazar kiye bghair decree ko yaktarfa karwa lete hain . or baad main wo decree set aside hu jati hai.

Sample of notice

Writ petition main petitioner ne ilzam lagaya ke us ko koi notice mosol nahi hoe the. Or petitioner toba tek singh ka rahaishi hai or case faisalabad main kia gia tha. .lihaza yaktarfa decree ko set aside kia jai.
Or yeh ke civil procedure code ke process ko follow nahi kia gia tha.
Na hi AD ka card aya na hi process server ki taraf se report jama karwai gai.
Plaintiff ki taraf se jawab dia gia ke yaktarfa decree qanoon ke mutabaq hai.
Yeh ke petition per asal adress likha gia or adress bilkl theek likha gia hai.
High Court ne qarar dia ke notices ka jawab nahi aya tha. Jiss ki wajah se faisla ko set aside kar dia.
ٹرائل کورٹ کی طرف سے، لہذا، متبادل سروس
اخبار کے ذریعے قانون کی نظر میں غیر موثر رہا۔ ۔
کہ نہ تو واجب الادا وصولی ("AD") ہوئ اور نہ ہی
سمن سے متعلق رپورٹ متعلم ٹرائل کورٹ میں جمع کرائی گئی۔
نتیجتاً عدالتی فیصلے اور حکم نامے میں ضم ہونے والی ایک طرفہ کارروائی کا حکم غیر مناسب عجلت کے ساتھ منظور کیا گیا۔
لا کی نظر میں باطل ہے۔

High Court order

Stereo. H C J D A 38

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,

LAHORE

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Writ Petition No.70519/2022

Rehan Iqbal Vs. Abdul Haq,etc.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, J. Through this Writ Petition

under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan, 1973, the Petitioner has called into question the legality and

validity of Order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned Revisional

Court, whereby the Revision Petition of the Respondents was allowed

and Order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge

allowing the application for setting aside ex-parte Judgment and

Decree dated 19.10.2019 was set aside.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

Impugned Order is illegal and unlawful. According to learned counsel,

no notice was ever served upon the Petitioner, who is resident of

Tehsil Gojra District Toba Tek Singh, whereas, the suit was filed by

the Respondents in Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad. Learned

counsel for the Petitioner submits that the mandate of provisions of

Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( the “CPC”) was not

Writ Petition No.70519 of 2022 -2-

followed by the learned Trial Court, therefore, the substituted service

through newspaper remained ineffective in terms of law. Contends

that neither the acknowledgement due (“A.D.”) was received nor

report on summons was submitted before the learned Trial Court and

consequently the Order for ex-parte proceedings merging into exparte Judgment and Decree was passed with undue haste and the same

is nullity in the eye of law. Adds that the learned Civil Judge lawfully

appreciated the legal position and allowed the application filed by the

Petitioner, whereas through the Impugned Order by reversing the said

Order, the learned Revisional Court has committed material

irregularity and the same is liable to be set aside.

Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondents

submits that the suit was filed at correct address of the Petitioner i.e.

Street No.1, Mohallah Gulshan Colony, Tehsil Gojra, District Toba

Tek Singh, therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim that the notices were

not issued upon him. Learned counsel also submits that application for

seeking condonation of delay along with application for setting aside

of ex-parte Judgment and Decree failed to substantiate a sufficient

cause justifying its delayed institution. Further submits that the

Impugned Order passed by the learned Revisional Court is in

accordance with law and since the Petitioner defaulted in appearance

before the learned Trial Court, it had no other option but to pass exparte Judgment and Decree. Learned counsel concludes that the

instant Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Writ Petition No.70519 of 2022 -3-

The arguments of learned counsel for the parties have

been heard and record has been perused with their able assistance,

which reflects that on 10.05.2018 the Respondents/Plaintiffs filed a

suit against the Petitioner seeking cancellation of agreement to sell

dated 19.12.2017 along with permanent injunction. As per contents of

the plaint, the Respondents averred that they were owners in

possession of suit property situated in Chak No.47-GB Tehsil

Samundari District Faisalabad, which they agreed to sell to the

Petitioner/Defendant. The total sale consideration mentioned in the

subject agreement to sell was Rs.23,000,000/- and earnest money

received by the Respondents was in the sum of Rs.2,500,000/-,

whereas the remaining sale consideration in the amount of

Rs.20,500,000/- was liable to be paid on 30.04.2018. On account of

failure of the Petitioner to pay the balance sale consideration on the

due date, the Respondents were constrained to institute the suit, which

was filed in Tehsil Samundari District Faisalabad.

Upon institution of suit, through order dated 10.05.2018

summons/notices were issued to the Defendant, who is Petitioner

before this Court at address of Street No.1, Gulshan Colony Gojra,

Tehsil Gojra District Toba Tek Singh, through registered A.D. and

process fee was directed to be deposited. On 23.05.2018 the summons

through registered post A.D. were repeated as the Respondents had

failed to deposit process fee in time. On 04.06.2018 notices through

mode prescribed earlier were repeated as according to report of

Ahlmad on the order sheet, the summons had not returned nor receipt

Writ Petition No.70519 of 2022 -4-

of register A.D. was produced. On 26.06.2018 which is crucial date,

only receipt of registered post A.D. was filed by the

Respondents/Plaintiffs and the learned Trial Court passed an order

that the Petitioner/Defendant could not be served through summons,

therefore, he be served through substituted service by way of

publication in the daily newspaper ‘Asas’. Upon the publication in the

newspaper, nobody entered appearance on behalf of the Petitioner,

therefore, on 11.07.2018 the Petitioner was proceeded ex-parte.

Thereafter, case kept adjourning on one pretext or the other and

finally after recording oral as well as documentary evidence of the

Respondents/Plaintiffs the learned Trial Court passed ex-parte

Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.2019.

As per contents of the Application filed by the Petitioner

a legal notice was sent to the Respondents on 22.12.2020 contending

that under the subject matter agreement to sell the Respondents had

defaulted. In reply to the said legal notice sent by the Respondents on

12.02.2021, it was disclosed that the subject matter agreement to sell

was no more in the field pursuant to Judgment and Decree dated

19.10.2019. Thereafter on 27.02.2021 the Petitioner filed an

application seeking setting aside ex-parte Judgment and Decree along

with an application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, 1908. The said application was allowed by the

learned Trial Court through Order dated 09.12.2021. The Respondents

challenged the said Order before the learned Revisional Court, who

Writ Petition No.70519 of 2022 -5-

upheld the ex-parte Judgment and Decree by reversing the Order

dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge.

The contentious issue seeking resolution is whether the

Petitioner was ever served in accordance with law. Admittedly, in the

instant case, the summons issued to the Petitioner was never returned

with any report, whereas, though receipts of registered post A.D. were

presented but the learned Trial Court never received back the card of

A.D., therefore, the Order dated 26.06.2018 that Petitioner could not

be served through summons appears to have been passed in betrayal

of mandate of law and it seems that the learned Trial Court failed to

exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law.

The first obligation of the learned Trial Court was that if

it had noticed that the Petitioner was resident of another District, the

safest mode should have been to follow the provisions of Order V

rules 21 and 23 of the CPC, which provides that if Defendant resides

within the jurisdiction of another Court, the summons shall be sent by

the Court by which it is issued either by one of its officers or by post

to any Court having jurisdiction in the place where the defendant

resides. Under rule 23 of Order V of the CPC, the Court to which

summons are sent under rule 21 shall, upon receipt thereof, proceed as

if it had been issued by such Court and shall then return the summons

to the Court of issue, together with the record of its proceedings with

regard thereto.

The Order dated 26.06.2018 has been analyzed in the

light of said provisions of law and it is observed that while issuing the

Writ Petition No.70519 of 2022 -6-

summons to the Petitioner/Defendant, those provisions were

overlooked by the learned Trial Court, which upon non-return of

summons sent by the issuing Court and non-receipt of A.D. was sine

qua non for the service of Petitioner/Defendant. Failure of the Trial

Court to follow the mandate contained in provisions of Order V rules

21 and 23 of the CPC had serious consequence and order for issuing

substituted service through publication was nullity in the eyes of law.

Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment reported as Rana

Jahangir Khan vs. Manzoor Ahmad (PLD 2012 Lahore 204).

10.

The provisions of rules 16, 17 and 18 of Order V of the

CPC were also ignored by the learned Trial Court as the said

provisions are not illusory and it was bounden duty of the Court to

ensure substantial compliance of these provisions before directing

substituted service as unless provisions contained in rules 16, 17, 18,

21 and 23 are not satisfied, the order for substituted service under

Order V rule 20 of the CPC is nullity in the eyes of law as the Court

for the said purpose has to satisfy itself that all the efforts to affect

service in the ordinary mode have failed. Non-adherence to the

mandatory provisions renders the process of service through

publication invalid and edifice built automatically falls down.

Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment reported as

Yaqoob Ali through L.Rs. and others vs. Muhammad Ayub and others

(PLD 2021 Lahore 678).

11.

Adherence and observance to these provisions is

mandatory as due service is the first fundamental right of every

Writ Petition No.70519 of 2022 -7-

litigant, who is to defend his cause before the court of law. Therefore,

it is not only a formality but a matter of importance that these

provisions are duly complied with. According to law laid down by the

Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgment reported as Mrs. Nargis Latif

vs. Mrs. Feroz Afaq Ahmed Khan (2001 SCMR 99) “unless all efforts

to effect service in the ordinary manner are verified to have failed,

substituted service cannot be resorted to.”

12.

There is no cudgel to the conclusion derived by the

learned Revisional Court in the Impugned Order that the substituted

service is as effective as personal service and the court may on the

failure of defendant to appear when the suit is called for hearing,

proceed with the hearing of the suit ex-parte as substituted service has

always been equated with that of due service. But the learned

Revisional Court failed to advert that the said effectiveness can only

be presumed authentic if either record or order reflects that the

provisions of Order V in relation to service of summons or through

registered A.D. have been duly complied with. As the remedy of

substituted service can be resorted to only if the court is satisfied that

there is a reason to believe that the other side is shying out only to

avoid the service. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment

reported as Sana Jamali vs. Mujeeb Qamar and another (2023 SCMR

316).

13.

Now adverting to the question whether the application

filed by the Petitioner was barred by time or not, suffice is to observe

that under Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a defendant may

Writ Petition No.70519 of 2022 -8-

seek setting aside of ex-parte decree within a period of thirty days and

Column No.III of the said Article provides that these thirty days are to

be computed from the date of decree or where the summons were not

duly served when the applicant had knowledge of the decree.

14.

In the instant case, it has already been discussed above

that Order of ex-parte proceedings was passed without following the

mandate of Order V and without satisfying itself that why the

summons could not be served and consequently, the Petitioner was

never served in accordance with law. Therefore, obviously the

limitation of thirty days cannot commence from the date of decree as

it can only commence from attaining the knowledge of the ex-parte

Judgment and Decree. In the instant case, the Petitioner attained the

knowledge on 12.02.2021 when Respondents replied to his legal

notice and informed him about the ex-parte Judgment and Decree.

Thereafter, the application was filed on 27.02.2021 i.e. within a period

of limitation.

15.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is

disappointing for this Court that failure to adhere to the mandatory

provisions with respect to service on the Petitioner through ordinary

modes has caused colossal loss to both the parties as the Petitioner is

entangled to litigation since the passing of Order of ex-parte

proceedings, whereas, the Respondents are suffering on account of

mistake committed by the learned Trial Court.

16.

The Revisional Court by reversing the Order passed by

the Civil Court committed material irregularity as it failed to analyze

Writ Petition No.70519 of 2022 -9-

the legal position that on account of non-adherence to the mandatory

provisions of Order V of the CPC in relation to service through

ordinary modes, the service upon the Petitioner through substituted

mode was inconsequential.

17.

As a consequence of the above discussion, this Writ

Petition is allowed and Impugned Order dated 26.08.2022 passed by

the learned Revisional Court is set aside and as a result thereof the

Order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge pursuant

whereto the ex-parte Judgment and Decree was set aside, is upheld.

18.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned

District Judge, Faisalabad on 04.09.2023, who is directed to assign the

matter to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

(MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI)

JUDGE

*Syed Zameer*

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.