The plaintiff of the OV, 910, 10A, 10A, and 20 Service of the Summons, on the second day of arrival from abroad, applied to set the previous order on the basis that she had been out of the country for the last three years. And on his return, he received information about his ex-parte decree through his son when at the bottom of the record the two courts simultaneously rejected the defendant's request, claiming that the plaintiff had applied, In which, it was stated that the defendant lived within the jurisdiction of the court and deliberately avoided the process of service directed by the court, so the publication day After proper and reasonable diligence should be given to the East Coast, if the present service officer was not available to the defendant and when there was no agent, he would accept the summons service on his behalf. The serving officer should then seek summons on the exterior door and some other prominent part of the house in which the plaintiff usually lived or did business, but the defendant's address was deliberately presented. , Which was a clear violation of OV, RR 9, 10 & 10A, CPC because the claimant was obliged to provide the correct address with the AD card for post-service. The plaintiff failed to comply with the court's direction on behalf of the plaintiff and the court also suffered misunderstandings and directed publication in the press under OV, R20, CPC without obeying the above law. Was granted, the High Court set aside the trial court's decision and ruling by the appellate court, without jurisdiction, the law was upheld, and the case was remanded to the trial court.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
