Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioners filed a suit against their paternal uncle, the respondent, seeking specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for the sale of a piece of land. The petitioners claimed to have made significant payments as part of the agreement. They also applied for a temporary injunction to prevent the respondent from selling the land or interfering with their possession. However, the court, in its judgment, emphasized the need for a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and a balance of convenience for the grant of a temporary injunction. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case as there was no written agreement, and they did not provide proof of the alleged payments. The court highlighted the importance of convincing and reliable evidence in cases based on oral agreements. As a result, the court dismissed the petition for a temporary injunction, stating that there was no merit in the revision petition.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.IX, R.13 & O.V, R.20---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A---Application to set asideex-party decree, rejection of---Modes of service to the defendant---Scope---Right to fair trial---Scope---Held, that though the notices, in the present case, were issued to the petitioner butthe same could not be served upon him and then publication was made in newspaper for hisappearance, thereafter ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and afterrecording ex-parte evidence, the suit was decreed in favour of respondent---Trial Court didnot ascertain the factual position as to whether the notices had properly been served upon thepetitioner and impugned decree and judgment did not justify reasons for the rejection ofapplication under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C.---Article 10-A of the Constitution provided that aperson "shall" be entitled for fair trial and due process both in civil and criminal proceedingsand the rights of person were protected---Even otherwise, under O.V, R.20, C.P.C,substituted service could only be ordered where the Court was satisfied that there werereasons to believe that the defendant was keeping himself away for the purpose of avoidingservice or that for any other reason, the summons could not be served in the ordinary way---Trial Court was supposed to do substantial justice between the parties by restoring the suit inits original position and allowing the parties to prosecute the suit on merits and to leadevidence their pro and contra evidence---Trial Court, in the present case, had failed to effectservice of notice upon the petitioner/defendant through process-server or on the pointation ofthe respondent/plaintiff as the premises of defendant was known to the respondent---Even ifthe service could not be effected the Trial Court was duty bound to have asked for filing of afresh address of the defendant , but instead the Trial Court ordered for proclamation in thenewspaper---Said procedure was bad in law and the process-server had not reported eitherthe avoidance or refusal of service by the defendant, as such the defendant had not beenproperly served---Petitioner was non-suited and was condemned unheard, in circumstances---High Court set aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below---Case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision on merits by providing full and fairopportunity to the parties---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.Malik Muhammad Nazir v. Mian Abdul Raheem and another PLD 1968 Lah. 792 ref.(b) Administration of justice--------Cases were to be decided on merit instead of technicalities.