MUHAMMAD INAYAT versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PHALIA
Article 199 of the OV, Rr 17 and 18 and O IX, R 13 Constitution of Pakistan Constitutional Petition for Recovery of the Appeal The service rendered on the plaintiff's requirements did not adequately affect the respondent's rejection of the previous order. The request for was rejected at the same time / the defendant refused to accept the summons according to the report of the processor server, and if the applicant / defendant refused to accept the summons then the processor CPC OV was bound under R17 to comply. Seeking summons at any obvious place in the applicant / defendant's home; but this was not done by the provisions of the OV processor server; CPC R17 required that any validation on oath by the processor server The summons was on the tunnel officer did not make any attempt to affect the applicant's service. The applicant / respondent refused to accept the summons, the process server was also missing from the alternative service report, was made for no reason and due process was not complied with and hence they too Was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. , In these cases, was incomplete and could not be relied upon to initiate a previous action against the applicant / defendant. The High Court set aside the invalid orders of the lower courts and allowed the petitioner / defendant's ex parte decree to be set aside. Constitutional petition is allowed, accordingly.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
