Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
[Lahore]
Before Abaid Ullah Khan, J
Mst. SAKINA BIBI--Petitioner
versus
ADDISSIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE III,
MUZAFFARGARH and 5 others---Respondent
Write Petition No. 202 of 1985 , decided on 15th April, 1985.
9--Summons--Mode of service--Substituted service--Service of defendant /respondent through brother. would be as good as personal service--Orders of Trial Court asking plaintiff /petitioner to pay fresh process fee and publication charges for effecting substituted service upon respondent and consequently dismissing suit of petitioner for non-payment of same, held, would not be legal and proper--High Court in constitutional jurisdiction, declared order of Trial Court and of revisional Court below confirming same, to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Rana M. Anwar for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Mushtaq Ahmad Aqil for Respondents Nos. 3 to 6.
Date of hearing: 15th April, 1985.
The relevant facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition impugning the legality of the order of the learned Civil Judge, Kot Addu, respondent No. 2, dated the 28th February, 1983, dismissing the petitioner's suit as against respondent 6 for alleged non-payment of process fee and publication charges and of the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh respondent No. 1, dated the 2nd January, 1985, declining to interfere in revision with the order of the learned Civil Judge, are these. Mst. Sakina Bibi, petitioner, brought a declaratory suit touching her title to and possession over the land in dispute and for issuance of perpetual injunction against respondents 3 to 6. Respondent No. 6 is the sister of respondents 3 to 5. She was served through her brother, Abdul Majid, respondent 3. Despite this fact the learned trial Court insisted on getting her served with substituted service and called upon the petitioner to pay process fee and publication charges but on the petitioner's failure to pay the same her suit against respondent 6 was dismissed. Her review application and revision petition to the learned District Court met the same fate. Hence this petition.
2. Respondent 6's service through her brother, respondent 3, was as good as personal service and there- was no idea in asking the petitioner to pay fresh process fee and publication charges for effecting substituted service upon respondent 6. Consequently the learned trial Court's order dismissing the petitioner's suit against respondent 6 was not legal and proper and so were the subsequent orders. The impugned order of the learned trial Court as also of the learned revisional Court are declared to have been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect. 'Zhe petition is accepted with costs.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer