Summary: Execution of decree—Jurisdiction of executing court—Scope of revisional jurisdiction—Principle that executing court cannot go behind the decree. Held, the executing court is bound to execute the decree as it stands and cannot sit in appeal over a decree that has attained finality, except to the extent of declaring any part of it inexecutable or a nullity if severable. The executing court exceeded its jurisdiction by calling for fresh revenue record, reassessing title, and effectively re-adjudicating matters already concluded by the trial and appellate courts. The High Court rightly exercised revisional powers to correct this jurisdictional overreach and restore the legal boundaries of execution. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ali and others v. Ghulam Sarwar and others (1989 SCMR 640) • Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 4 others v. Shalimar General Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 others (1994 SCMR 22) • Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 2009 SC 760) (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- O. VIII, R.2 & O. XVIII, R.2 ---- Civil suit—Pleadings—Matters not pleaded, confronted, or proved—Effect. Held, a plea not taken in pleadings, not made subject of an issue, not confronted during cross-examination, and unsupported by evidence cannot be raised subsequently, particularly at the execution stage. The petitioners/judgment-debtors failed to plead that the properties were self-acquired by the deceased’s sons, led no evidence in defence, and did not challenge the 2nd ex parte decree; their attempt to introduce such plea during execution was an afterthought. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- Ss. 96, 100 & 47 ---- Ex parte decree—Finality—Effect of non-challenge—Execution of decree. Held, the 2nd ex parte judgment and decree dated 22.02.2021, unchallenged by the petitioners, attained finality and was binding upon them. Once a decree becomes final, the executing court cannot reassess its merits or reopen settled findings. (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ---- Arts. 71, 73 & 75 ---- Documentary evidence—Revenue record—Probative value—Tampered or forged documents produced later. Held, documentary evidence exhibited by decree-holder (including jamabandi, fard, and mutations) produced through official witnesses remained unshaken in cross-examination and supported ownership of the deceased. Subsequent tampered or forged documents produced before the executing court had no legal worth and were rightly ignored by the High Court. (e) Administration of justice ---- Supervisory jurisdiction—Correction of jurisdictional error—High Court’s revisional interference—When warranted. Held, the High Court was justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., as the executing court had acted in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles by re-opening concluded questions of title. The High Court’s order was well-reasoned and consistent with established precedent. Disposition: Civil Petition dismissed and Leave to Appeal refused. The judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dated 08.04.2024 was upheld, and the interim order dated 30.10.2024 was recalled.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- O. V, Rr. 17, 19 & O. IX, Rr. 6, 13 ---- Ex parte decree ---- Substituted service without satisfaction of prerequisites ---- Nullity in law In a suit for recovery, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte and decree passed on 18.09.2013. The petitioner’s application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., was dismissed, followed by constitutional petition also being dismissed by the High Court. Supreme Court held that no order for substituted service was passed on the relevant date and substituted service via publication was effected without satisfying the mandatory prerequisites of O.V, R.20, C.P.C. No statement of process server was recorded to support the claim of avoidance of service or impossibility of service through ordinary means. Held, substituted service without judicial satisfaction of prior service failure is invalid; entire proceedings stand vitiated. Cited Case: • Sana Jamali v. Mujeeb Qamar 2023 SCMR 316 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- O. IX, R.13 ---- Right to fair hearing ---- Audi alteram partem ---- Ex parte decree liable to be set aside where service is defective Supreme Court held that when ex parte decree is passed without due and legal service of summons, it violates the fundamental principle of natural justice—audi alteram partem. Service through publication, not preceded by effective service attempts and judicial satisfaction, renders the proceedings void. Defendant cannot be condemned unheard. Held, technicalities should be avoided where they obstruct justice. Petitioner's absence from proceedings was not deliberate; denial of fair opportunity necessitates restoration of case on merits. Cited Case: • Syed Muhammad Anwar Advocate v. Sheikh Abdul Haq 1985 SCMR 1228 • Muhammad Sharif v. MCB Bank Ltd. 2021 SCMR 1158 • Faqir Muhammad v. Khursheed Bibi 2024 SCMR 107 (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 12(2) vs. O. IX, R. 13 ---- Comparative scope and applicability ---- Principles restated with illustrative examples Court elaborated the distinctions: Section 12(2), C.P.C. applies when a decree is challenged on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction. It is available to any aggrieved person, including non-parties. Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. applies only to ex parte decrees, is available only to defendants, and hinges on non-service or sufficient cause for non-appearance. If summons were not properly served, O. IX, R. 13 is applicable; if judgment was procured by deceit or concealment of facts, S. 12(2) is invoked. Court emphasized that mere labeling under S. 12(2) is insufficient without pleadings disclosing specific fraud particulars per O. VI, R.4, C.P.C. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- Ss. 47, 151, 144 & O. XXI, Rr. 26, 90 ---- Ancillary provisions to S. 12(2) and O. IX, R. 13 C.P.C. ---- Execution and restitution frameworks explained Court clarified that: S. 47 governs questions during execution including objections arising from invalid or fraudulent decrees. S. 151 provides inherent power to prevent abuse and ensure justice, especially when S. 12(2) or O. IX, R.13 do not provide complete procedural relief. S. 144 allows restitution when an ex parte decree is later set aside. O. XXI R. 26 permits stay of execution during pendency of challenge to decree. These provisions collectively ensure that procedural rules do not defeat substantive justice. (e) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art. 10A ---- Fair trial and due process ---- Defendant deprived of opportunity to contest ---- Ex parte decree set aside to prevent miscarriage of justice Held, fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution guarantees the right to contest claims. Petitioner was denied this right due to flawed substituted service and non-adherence to due process. Decree passed without giving a party a chance to be heard contravenes constitutional protection. Trial court’s non-compliance with mandatory provisions rendered the decree unsustainable. Disposition: Leave to appeal granted; petition converted into appeal and allowed. Orders of the High Court dated 18.09.2023 and trial court dated 14.07.2022 set aside. Ex parte judgment and decree dated 18.09.2013 also set aside. Matter remanded to trial court for de novo hearing after obtaining written statement, framing issues, and recording evidence.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) ----S. 12(2)—Ex parte decree—Application for setting aside—Grounds—Fraud—Misrepresentation—Want of jurisdiction—Burden of proof—Scope— Petitioner sought to set aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 by invoking S.12(2), CPC, alleging that the decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation—Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that Petitioner failed to prove any of the statutory grounds under S.12(2), CPC—Held, to invoke S.12(2), CPC, Petitioner must substantiate existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction—Personal service was effected, signatures matched those in CNIC and affidavit—Learned Civil Judge was empowered under Article 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to compare signatures without forensic report—Petitioner failed to file application for setting aside ex parte proceedings within limitation and instead resorted to S.12(2), CPC without sufficient evidence—No illegality or material irregularity found in impugned order. Cited Provisions: S.12(2), CPC; Art. 84, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; Art. 164, Limitation Act, 1908 (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ----Art. 164—Ex parte decree—Application to set aside—Limitation—30 days—Scope— Application for setting aside ex parte decree must be filed within 30 days under Article 164—Petitioner failed to avail remedy within limitation—Instead, belatedly invoked S.12(2), CPC without establishing fraud or misrepresentation—Held, Petitioner cannot bypass statutory limitation by framing ordinary procedural lapse as fraud. (c) Evidence Law—Signature verification—Article 84, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Judicial comparison of handwriting—Scope— Trial Court’s comparison of signatures on service summons and application under S.12(2) held valid—Court competent under Article 84 of QSO, 1984 to form opinion on handwriting—Forensic referral not mandatory where signature comparison is straightforward. Disposition: Civil Revision dismissed—Impugned Order dated 12.09.2023 upheld—Petitioner failed to prove grounds under S.12(2), CPC—No fraud, misrepresentation or jurisdictional defect established—No costs. "Revision against dismissal of application u/s 12(2) CPC filled by petitioner for setting aside Ex-Parte Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2016."

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 74, 75 & 79--- Primary and secondary evidence---Photocopies of documents marked in evidence---Admissibility---Proof of documents in civil litigation---Ex-parte judgment---Value of uncorroborated testimony. Appellant, after producing photocopies of various documents without adhering to the conditions prescribed for secondary evidence under Arts. 74 and 75 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, failed to legally substantiate his claim. The learned Trial Court, though marking these photocopies as evidence, rightly held that such documents lacked evidentiary value under the law. Photostat copies could only be admitted as secondary evidence if criteria under Article 74 were fulfilled, such as being certified or verified through mechanical process or comparison. Sole oral testimony of the Appellant without independent corroboration was not sufficient to establish the claim in civil proceedings. Held, mere “marking” of photocopies without due proof renders them inadmissible, and the suit was rightly dismissed on this ground. Cited Statutes: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (Arts. 74, 75, 79) (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 96--- Regular First Appeal---Limitation---Time-barred appeal---Scope and effect. Appeal against the dismissal of suit was filed after nearly six months, while the prescribed limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908 was 90 days. The Court found the appeal not only meritless but also time-barred. Held, appeal filed after expiry of the statutory limitation period without condonation cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. Cited Statutes: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (S. 96); Limitation Act, 1908 (c) Civil Litigation---Ex-parte decree---Scope of Court’s discretion in ex-parte proceedings. Despite ex-parte proceedings and absence of contest from Respondents, the Appellant was under a legal obligation to prove his claim through admissible evidence. The principle that civil matters must be decided on merits does not absolve a plaintiff from satisfying evidentiary requirements. Held, dismissal of suit even in ex-parte circumstances was justified due to legal deficiencies in proof and lack of compliance with evidentiary rules. Cited Principle: Burden of proof in ex-parte matters remains upon the plaintiff to satisfy the Court under settled principles of law.

Summary: (a) Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 ----S. 54---- Jurisdiction of Registrar—Scope and limits—Dispute regarding title to immovable property—Maintainability before Registrar under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925—Phrase “touching the business of the society”—Interpretation—Principle— Held, the expression “touching the business of the society” under S.54 of the Act is a jurisdictional prerequisite that determines the Registrar’s authority to entertain a dispute—The term "business" must be narrowly construed to refer only to commercial or operational activities of the society, and not matters extraneous to its authorized functions—Registrar is not empowered to adjudicate on questions of ownership or title to immovable property once such matters are the subject of civil litigation—Arbitration award rendered by Registrar, purporting to decide a title dispute without impleading affected parties and while civil court decree was in existence, held to be void and of no legal effect—Civil courts alone possess jurisdiction over matters of title, ownership, and possession of immovable property—Citing Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders & Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 and Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that cooperative disputes falling outside the internal affairs and core business of the society do not fall under S.54—Invocation of arbitration mechanism by petitioner was declared to be mala fide, conducted behind the back of lawful title holders, and contrary to natural justice. Cited Cases: • Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors. [1969] (1) SCR 887 (India) • The National Co-Operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. v. Delhi Administration AIR 1971 Delhi 141 (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10A---- Due process of law—Natural justice—Non-impleadment of necessary parties in arbitration proceedings—Effect— Held, arbitration proceedings initiated under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 by the petitioner were violative of due process as neither the respondent nor his predecessor-in-interest (lawful transferees under registered instruments) were impleaded—The ex parte award adversely affected their vested property rights without affording opportunity of hearing—Violation of Art. 10A of the Constitution—Such omission was indicative of mala fides—Arbitration award and subsequent execution proceedings, including lease deed executed by Nazir, were rightly set aside by the High Court. Cited Cases: • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain [1969] (1) SCR 887 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 12(2)---- Fraudulent concealment—Effect of failing to disclose prior litigation in arbitration proceedings—Non-speaking award—Legal consequences— Held, petitioner failed to disclose existence of earlier civil litigation which culminated in a final decree against him—Award was non-speaking, made without reference to validly registered instruments or decrees passed in favor of respondent’s predecessor—Registrar exceeded jurisdiction in issuing such award—It is settled that a civil court decree cannot be nullified by parallel proceedings under a special statute—Petitioner’s conduct in securing such award without disclosing material facts or impleading lawful owners amounted to abuse of legal process—Subsequent lease deed dated 20.04.2019 executed on basis of arbitration award was declared to be of no legal effect. Cited Cases: • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders & Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 Disposition: Petition dismissed—Leave to appeal refused—Impugned judgment of the High Court affirmed as well-reasoned and legally sound.

Summary: (a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.VII R.11 – Punjab Irrigation, Drainage and Rivers Act, 2023, S.189 – Rejection of plaint – Scope – Suit for declaration challenging orders passed by Canal Authorities under the repealed Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 – Maintainability – Held, orders were challenged on grounds of mala fide, conspiracy, and violation of natural justice – Jurisdiction of Civil Court not ousted retrospectively by 2023 Act when proceedings originated under 1873 Act – Trial Court erred in rejecting plaint under O.VII R.11 without framing issues or allowing evidence – Civil Court can examine legality of actions where allegations of excess or lack of jurisdiction, mala fides, or violation of law are raised.(b) Punjab Irrigation, Drainage and Rivers Act, 2023 – S.189 – Ouster of Civil Court’s jurisdiction – Interpretation – Held, ouster clauses must be construed strictly – Section 189 does not retrospectively bar jurisdiction of Civil Court in matters where rights accrued under repealed law (Canal and Drainage Act, 1873) – Unless clear legislative intent exists to bar jurisdiction over pending or accrued matters, Civil Courts retain authority to adjudicate civil disputes.(c) General Clauses Act, 1956 (Punjab) – S.4 – Effect of repeal – Scope – Repeal of statute does not affect rights accrued, liabilities incurred, or legal proceedings commenced under repealed statute – Suit instituted in respect of rights or grievances arising under repealed law can proceed as if repeal had not occurred – Application of maxim: Nova Constitutio Futuris Formam Imponere Debet, Non Praeteritis.(d) Specific Relief – Judicial review – Actions of Canal Authorities challenged on grounds of lack of hearing, ex-parte decision, and malafide exercise of power – Held, where statutory authorities act beyond jurisdiction or violate natural justice, ouster clause does not apply – Civil Court has jurisdiction to determine legality and validity of such acts.(e) Civil Procedure – O.VII R.11 – Premature rejection of plaint – Principle – Held, rejection of plaint without inquiry into facts and framing of issues is not sustainable – Trial Court must allow parties to produce evidence on jurisdictional and legal questions before rejecting suit – Reference made to Abbasia Cooperative Bank v. Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Ghous (PLD 1997 SC 03).Disposition:Civil Revision allowed. Orders of the Trial and Appellate Courts rejecting the plaint set aside. Suit restored and remanded to Trial Court to frame issues regarding jurisdiction and legality of Canal Authorities’ actions, and decide the matter after recording evidence.Cited Cases:Abbasia Cooperative Bank v. Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Ghous (PLD 1997 SC 03)Muhammad Saif Ullah v. LDA (PLD 2021 Lahore 168)Ch. Zafar Hussain v. Border Area Committee (2012 MLD 1538)Mr. Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698)Province of Punjab v. Haji Yaqoob Khan (2007 SCMR 554)Cited Legislation & Provisions:Punjab Irrigation, Drainage and Rivers Act, 2023, Ss. 189, 205Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, Ss. 67, 68Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956, S.4Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.VII R.11, S.9

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XXXVII, R. 4—Ex parte judgment and decree—Application to set aside—Summary suit—Special procedure—Scope—Appellant assailed dismissal of application under O. XXXVII, R. 4, C.P.C. seeking to set aside ex parte decree passed in a summary suit for recovery based on a cheque—Appellant claimed lack of proper service and alleged concealment of facts by Respondent—Held, summary suits under O. XXXVII, C.P.C. follow a special procedure requiring the defendant to file an application for leave to defend alongside the application to set aside ex parte decree—Appellant neither challenged order for ex parte proceedings nor filed leave to defend—Service was duly effected through substituted modes including newspaper publication—Delay in filing application and absence of leave to defend rendered application defective—No special or exceptional circumstances shown—Trial Court rightly dismissed application—Impugned order upheld. Cited Case: Muhammad Mansab v. Muhammad Hanif 2025 SCMR 60 (b) Summary Suits—Nature and scope: ----Requirement of leave to defend—Filing of application—Mandatory procedural safeguard—Appellant failed to file leave to appear and defend suit as required under O. XXXVII, C.P.C.—Held, Rule 4 envisages relief only in rare and exceptional cases—Ordinary excuses such as being abroad, service on alternate address, or pending documentation do not suffice—Delay or negligence on part of defendant cannot be condoned in summary proceedings without a valid explanation supported by documents—Relief under O. XXXVII, R. 4 not available in absence of strict compliance with procedure. (c) Limitation Act, 1908: ----Summary suits—Delay in filing application to set aside ex parte decree—Consequences—Appellant filed application beyond limitation period without plausible justification—Held, delay fatal in absence of leave to defend or any sufficient cause—Mere assertion of being abroad or ignorance of proceedings insufficient—Equity and justice must align with statutory framework to avoid misuse of process and frustration of summary remedy intended by legislature. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed; impugned order refusing to set aside ex parte decree upheld.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O. IX, R. 13---Setting aside ex-parte judgment---Power of attorney---Scope---Appellant filed an application under O. IX, R. 13, CPC for setting aside an ex-parte judgment and decree---Trial Court dismissed the application based on a special oath administered by the attorney of the appellant---Additional District Judge, in appellate jurisdiction, set aside the trial court's decision and remanded the matter for recording of evidence---High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the appellate court’s decision and upheld the trial court’s ruling---Supreme Court held that revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction under S.115, CPC by interfering in the well-founded appellate court decision---A power of attorney merely authorizing an attorney to pursue litigation does not empower the attorney to make binding settlements or propose decisions based on special oaths---Held, that the revisional court had erred in misinterpreting the scope of the attorney’s authority, and the judgment of the Additional District Judge was restored accordingly. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ali v. Muhammad Aslam (PLD 1990 SC 841) (b) Administration of Justice ----Revisional jurisdiction---Scope and limitations---High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by replacing the well-reasoned findings of the Additional District Judge in appellate jurisdiction---Where the appellate court has exercised its jurisdiction properly and in accordance with law, interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction is not warranted under S.115, CPC---Revisional powers do not extend to mere substitution of opinion where no jurisdictional defect is found---Supreme Court restored the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing that remanded matters should be taken to their logical conclusion expeditiously. (c) Law of Evidence ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (P.O. 10 of 1984), Art. 163---Oaths Act (X of 1873), Ss. 8 & 9---Decision on special oath---Scope and effect---A case decided on a special oath must be carefully examined to determine whether the authority to propose such an oath was legally conferred---Power of attorney enabling an attorney to "pursue" litigation does not imply the authority to compromise the case or bind the principal to a settlement via a special oath---Held, that the attorney in the present case had exceeded the scope of authority conferred by the power of attorney, rendering the decision based on special oath unsustainable.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXVII Rr.1, 2 & S. 115---Recovery suit on the basis of cheque--- Ex parte proceedings in summary suit---Production of evidence in proof of claim, requirement of---Scope---Principle of natural justice and procedured fairness---Contention of the petitioner/plaintiff was that since an ex parte order had been passed against the defendants/respondents, thus, instead of passing an order for production of evidence of the plaintiff, Trial Courts hould have decreed the suit---Validity---In summary suits under O. XXXVII, C.P.C., where defendants are proceeded against ex parte, the plaintiff is still required to lead evidence to prove his claim---Ex parte decree in a summary suit under O. XXXVII, C.P.C. is not automatic---Plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to allow the court to scrutinize the genuineness of the claim for ensuring that the judgment is based on solid proof---Necessity of recording plaintiff's evidence, even in ex parte summary suit proceedings, stems from principles of natural justice and fairness in procedure---Civil revision was dismissed in limine in circumstance. Furqan Ahmad for Petitioner.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O. V, R. 20, O. IX, R. 13, Limitation Act, Art. 164 Substituted service and ex parte proceedings---Legality of ex parte decree and effect of improper service---Petitioner challenged the ex parte decree passed in favor of respondent, contending that the service of summons was not duly effected as required under Order V, Rule 20, CPC---Trial Court resorted to substituted service without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of recording the process server’s statement---Held, that substituted service can only be effected when ordinary summons cannot be served or defendant deliberately avoids service, and such satisfaction must be recorded by the Court before resorting to alternate methods---Failure to adhere to this requirement renders the ex parte decree null and void---Trial Court’s order setting aside the ex parte decree was upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. Cited Cases: - Sana Jamali v. Mujeeb Qamar (2023 SCMR 316) - Syed Muhammad Anwar Advocate v. Sheikh Abdul Haq (1985 SCMR 1228) (b) Administration of justice--- ----Effect of procedural lapses on adjudication---Principle of Audi Alteram Partem reaffirmed---Supreme Court emphasized that every litigant must be provided a fair opportunity to present their case, and technicalities should not be allowed to obstruct justice---Trial Court’s failure to ensure proper service of summons warranted setting aside of the ex parte decree. Cited Cases: - Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Muhammad Anwar Khan (2014 YLR 485) - Mst. Afzal Begum v. Y.M.C.A. (PLD 1979 SC 18) (c) Limitation and procedural fairness--- ----Scope of Order IX, Rule 13, CPC, and Article 164 of the Limitation Act---Question of limitation for filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree discussed---Held, that limitation begins from the date when the defendant acquires knowledge of the decree, provided the service of summons was not duly effected---High Court’s findings that respondent had no knowledge of proceedings were upheld. Cited Cases: - Government of Balochistan v. Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi (2010 SCMR 115) - Sher Wali Khan v. Mst. Khosh Begum (2011 CLC 421) (d) Court’s obligation to rectify procedural errors--- ----Doctrine of "actus curiae neminem gravabit" applied---Legal principle that no one should suffer due to an error of the court reaffirmed---Supreme Court reiterated that procedural lapses by the Court must not prejudice any party and such errors must be corrected to ensure fair administration of justice. Cited Cases: - Muhammad Sharif v. MCB Bank Limited (2021 SCMR 1158) - Faqir Muhammad v. Khursheed Bibi (2024 SCMR 107) Disposition: Leave refused; petition dismissed.