|
S. 24-A, O, V, R.
20 & O. IX, Rr. 3, 4---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 164 &
181---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Suit
pending in High Court transferred to District Court on administrative
ground due to change in pecuniary jurisdiction---dismissal of suit by Trial Court for non-prosecution ---Plaintiff's
application for restoration of suit dismissed by Trial Court, but accepted
by revisional court---Validity---Case Diary of Trial Court showed that
plaintiff had not been served with court motion notices through normal
process---Report of Process Server regarding service by way of pasting
did not show date, time, name and address of person upon whom such
service was effected---Process Server had not associated any independent
witness while effecting service through pasting---Such report showed that
such process had been served upon defendant, but not plaintiff---Nothing
on record to show that plaintiff or her counsel had been duly served or
she avoided to receive summons or court motion notice---Resort to
substituted service would be made only when all effor ts to effect service in ordinary manner were verified to
have been failed or party was reported to be avoiding to receive summons
deliberately----Trial Court had not observed provisions of S.24-A(2) and
O. V, R. 20, C.P.C.---Order of dismissal of suit was coram non judice, thus, limitation would not
run thereagainst---Impugned order was not suffering from any legal and
factual error---High Court dismissed constitutional petition in
circumstances.
|
