Find a Lawyer

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑

‑‑ O. V, r. 10‑A (2)‑Notice‑ Service‑,Natural justice, principle of Maxim : Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard)‑ Notice for date of hearing served on petitioner by registered post and acknowledgment receipt filed on record‑Petitioner not stating by appearing as a witness such acknowledgment receipt having not been signed by him or by any one else on his behalf‑Petitioner's attorney though appearing as his witness yet not stating acknowledgment receipt having not been signed by petitioner or by any one else on his behalf‑Notice, held, rightly held to have been served on petitioner.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 190t3)‑

‑‑ O. V, r. 10‑A (a)‑Notice‑Service‑Notice served on petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due but petitioner not appearing before Court‑Case adjourned to another date and on such date order passed Mere fact of order having not been made on date for which notice issued, held, did not entitle petitioner to a fresh notice for date on which order passed.

Muhammad Rashid Chughtai for Petitioner:

The petitioner, Afzal Ali Gill, was allotted certain land by the respondent, Thai Development Authority. Subsequently, however, his allotment was cancelled and the land was ordered to be resumed. The order of the respondent in this behalf was challenged by the petitioner by filing a suit which was decreed. The appeal preferred by the respondent was, however, accepted and the suit was dismissed. The petitioner has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.

2. Before the trial Court it was alleged by the petitioner that no show cause notice was given to him before the order of resumption of the land was made against him .and, therefore, the said order was opposed .to the principle of audi alteram partem.

3. Repelling the aforesaid plea of the petitioner, it was urged by the respondent that before the resumption of the land was ordered, a show‑cause notice was sent to the petitioner for 28th October, 1958 but he did not come forward to explain his position. Thereafter, on 20th November, 1958, the order of resumption was made by the Colonization Officer. In this regard, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the notice for 28th October, 1958, was not served on the petitioner and that even if it was served, he was entitled to a fresh notice for 20th November, 1958 when the order of resumption was passed but as no notice was sent to him for 20th November, 1958, it would be assumed that the impugned order was made against him without affording him an opportunity of being heard.

4. It is in the statement of the petitioner's own witness, Shamshad Hussain, that the notice for 28th October, 19.58 was served on the petitioner. That notice was sent to him by registered post. Exh. D. I is its ' acknowledgment receipt. It was not stated by the petitioner by appearing as a witness that the acknowledgment receipt was not signed by him or by any one else on his behalf. He did not enter the witness-box at all. His attorney Feroze, appeared as his witness but he too did not say that the said acknow ledgment receipt was not signed by the petitioner or any one else on hi behalf. 1 am, therefore, unable to take exception to the finding of the learned appellate Court that the said notice was served on the petitioner. ' .

5. As for the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to a fresh notice for 20th November, 1958 when the order of resumption was made,, he did not cite any authority for the pro position that if a person is given notice for a particular date to show cause against any action proposed to be taken against him but he does not respond to such a notice, he is entitled to a fresh notice for the date on which such] action is eventually taken against him. I feel that the requirements of the rule of audi alteram partem were met by substantially issuing notice to the petitioner for 28th October, 1958. It is not his case that on the said date (28th October, 1958) or any subsequent date he had appeared before the officer concerned to explain his view point but be was not heard. To my mind, the mere fact that the order of resumption was not made on 28th October, 1958, did not entitle the petitioner to a fresh notice for 20th November, 1958 when the said order was actually made. To hold otherwise would amount to putting premium on his indifference to the legal process issued to him for 28th October, 1958. 1 am, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of resumption of the disputed land is in disregard of the rule of audi alteram partem.

6. There is no merit in this revision. It is dismissed in limine.

s. A. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.