Service | Where service of notice is disputed, it is necessary to produce proof of service, particularly the statement of the process server. 2024 CLC 648
 |
| Where service of notice is disputed, it is necessary to produce proof of service, particularly the statement of the process server. 2024 CLC 648 |
اس کیس کا خلاصہ کچھ یوں ہے کہ ایک مقدمے میں مدعا علیہ کو یک طرفہ کارروائی کے ذریعے فیصلہ سنایا گیا تھا۔ مدعا علیہ کی جانب سے دائر کی گئی درخواست کو ابتدائی عدالت نے خارج کر دیا تھا کہ یک طرفہ کارروائی کو ختم کیا جائے، لیکن اپیلٹ کورٹ نے اس فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا۔ ابتدائی عدالت نے بغیر کسی مسئلہ طے کیے، شواہد ریکارڈ کیے بغیر اور مناسب طریقہ کار اپنائے بغیر درخواست کو فوراً خارج کر دیا تھا، حالانکہ نوٹس کی سروس پر تنازعہ تھا۔
مدعا علیہ نے یہ موقف اختیار کیا کہ انہیں کبھی عدالت کی طرف سے کوئی نوٹس نہیں دیا گیا تھا، اور یہ بھی ثابت نہیں کیا گیا کہ نوٹس کی سروس کیسے ہوئی اور کس پر کی گئی۔ مقدمے کی کاروائی میں قانونی تقاضے اور آرڈر V کے قوانین 16 سے 19 پر عمل نہیں کیا گیا تھا۔ پروسیس سرور سے بیان لینے کی بھی زحمت نہیں کی گئی کہ نوٹس کس طریقے سے اور کس پر سروس کی گئی۔ ان تمام وجوہات کی بنا پر، اپیلٹ کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مدعا علیہ کی درخواست وقت کے اندر دائر کی گئی تھی، اور مقدمہ میرٹ پر فیصلہ کرنے کے لیے کافی وجوہات موجود تھیں۔ اس وجہ سے عدالت نے درخواست کو منظور کر کے مقدمے کی دوبارہ سماعت کا حکم دیا۔
---Ex-parte decree---Setting aside of--- Limitation---
2024 CLC 648
–O. IX, R. 13---Ex-parte decree---Setting aside of--- Limitation---Petitioner/defendant was proceeded ex-parte and suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was decreed---In appeal Trial Court order declining the application under O.IX. R.13, C.P.C., was set aside, and resultantly, the ex-parte proceedings order and also the ex-parte decree were set-aside---Validity--- Record showed that the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C., was on the face of it legally untenable inasmuch as without framing any issue, recording any evidence or adopting proper procedure the application was straight away dismissed as serious factual controversy was raised as to the service of notice as according to the respondent he was never served by any process by the Transferee Court and that the ex-parte proceedings order was legally unsustainable---Where the service was disputed the person claiming service needed to prove the same through affirmative evidence, more particularly by producing the process server which exercise was never done in the present case---Order-sheet also indicated that the ordinary requirements of law and the procedure prescribed in Rr. 16 to 19 of O. V, C.P.C. were never strictly followed— Trial Court did not record any statement of the process server to satisfy as to how and in what manner the service was effected, upon whom the service was made and as to whether there was any plausible reason for the process server to deliver a notice to a third person instead of the party himself, rather than making repeated efforts by visiting the house of defendant to procure his personal service and whether in the given circumstances it could be considered to be a case of due diligence on the part of process server as required in law---As per order sheet, the trial Court had fixed the case for arguments on the application for stay of the execution and for that purpose the case was adjourned from 12.10.2018 to 26.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 24.11.2018; on which dates instead of confining his order to the stay matter the trial Court firstly dismissed the main application under O.IX, R.12, C.P.C., and thereafter, dismissed the stay application with the observation that it could not proceed because of the dismissal of main application, which was not fixed for arguments nor any evidence was recorded----Thus, Trial Court committed a serious error of jurisdiction in law in dismissing the same---Respondent after acquiring knowledge of the attachment of property, immediately moved the application for setting of ex-parte decree, which was within time from the date of knowledge---In the given circumstances, the view taken by Appellate Court was correct that the application was within time and that there were sufficient reasons for decision of suit on merits and that technicalities ought not be allowed to prevent the Courts from doing justice by giving fair and proper opportunity of evidence to the parties--- Order passed by the Appellate Court being in accordance with law did not call for any interference---Petition being without substance was dismissed, in circumstances. [Lahore]
Comments
Post a Comment