Find a Lawyer

Revision Application No.245 of 1981, decided on 30th October, 1986.

--O.V, R.20--Substituted service--Service of summons--Addresses of defendant given in plaint and in letters/ correspondence not the same and no attempt was made to Serve summons on defendant on address given in letters--Service of summons by substituted service, held, was not valid.

---S.115--Execution of decree--Security--Plaintiff/respondent himself not giving proper address of defendant; petitioner who was not served properly--Order of furnishing security, held, was harsh and deprived petitioner of hearing in her defence--Order of security as well as decree was set aside and case remanded to Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.

Habibur Rahman for Petitioner.

Sadruddin Huda for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 30th October, 1986.

The respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit against the applicant defendant and gave the address of the applicant as follows:-

Mst. Azra Parveen widow of Abdul Ghafoor, Muslim, Adult, carrying on business at S. M. Abdullah & Sons, Altaf Hussain Road, Karachi.

It is contended by Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman that the applicant was not carrying on any business at the above address, and the notice of the execution application was first issued at this very address, and thereafter it was served at her proper address i.e. Flat No.6. Mominat Mahal, Gwali Lane, Rattan Talao, Karachi. It is, therefore submitted that there was no service of the summons of the suit in law. Mr. Sadruddin Huda in reply has produced copies of the correspondence, which show the address of the applicant as follows:-

Mst. Azra Parveen, C/o S.M. Abdullah & Sons, 13, South Napier Road, P.O. Box No.4609, Karachi.

Two of such letters are placed on record with the consent of Mr. Habib-ur-Rahman, in which the address shown is as follows:-

(i) Mst. Azra Parveen, C/o S.M. Abdullah & Sons, 13 South Napier Road, P.O. Box No:4609, Karachi.

(ii) Mst. Azra Parveen C/o S.M. Abdullah & Sons, Altaf Hussain Road, Karachi.

The address mentioned in the letters and that given in the plaint are not the same. No attempt was made to, serve applicant at the address given in the letter, Neither the summons were issued C/o S.M. Abdullah & Sons nor the number of the building i.e. 13 was A given. No attempt was made to serve the summons through P.O. Box No. 4609. I am, therefore, satisfied that the service of summons effected on the applicant by substituted service was not a valid service, and therefore, the application was not time-barred.

As regards the order of furnishing of security, since the respondent itself had not given proper address of the applicant, I am, therefore, of the view that the order of furnishing of security was harsh and it would have and in fact it deprived the applicant of hearing in tier defence. I may record that Mr. Sadruddin Huda submitted that the address of the applicant given was that of her business. I asked him whether any summons were sent to the applicant by post through P.O. Box No.4609, which is the address given in the letters, but he stated that no letter was sent through the aforesaid P.O. B Box, and this is why this argument has not appealed to me. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and consequently the decree, and remand the case to the First Senior Civil Judge (South), Karachi, as requested to be disposed of within two months. The parties shall appear before the Senior Civil Judge on 13th November, 1986, when the applicant shall file her written statement, and no further date will be given to her for this purpose. In case she fails to file written statement, further proceedings will be taken in accordance with law.

I leave the parties to bear their own costs.

M.Y.H./A-56/K Case remanded

Find a Lawyer Near You

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