Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (LVI of 2002)------S. 3--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O.XVII & IX, Rr. 2, 3 & 13--Suit for recovery ofdamages--Dismissed--Allegation of corruption and running of terrorist camps--Application forrecalling of order--Dismissed--Filling of civil miscellaneous appeal--Allowed and case wasremanded--Issuance of notices and publication in newspaper for appearance of respondent--Exparte decreed--Application for execution--Application for sitting aside ex-parte decree duringpendency of execution proceedings--Rejected--Report of process server--Non-affixation ofnotices at outer door of appellant--Limitation--Perusal of record reveals that appellant wasresiding at Turbat City and running business by name of Mekran Petroleum Service at mainRoad Turbat but there is no report of process server as to whether summons were served or unserved upon appellant--Record further reveals that trial Court did not order for affixation ofnotice at outer door of house of appellant or at his business address nor same was sent throughcourier service--It seems that trial Court has failed to follow procedures as provided under Rule20 of Order V, CPC, therefore publication in Daily Intekhab cannot be considered as effectiveservice of notice upon appellants/defendants--Publication was made in Daily Intekhab Hub fordate of 23.04.2012 but appellant was not proceeded against ex-parte on said date and matter wasadjourned by Court for 27.04.2012--Without issuing any notice for appellant for 27.04.2012 andwithout making any publication for 27.04.2012, appellant was proceeded ex-parte by trial Courton basis of publication made for date of 23.04.2012 which is a grave illegality--On gettingknowledge of impugned ex-parte judgment and decree, appellant filed application for settingaside same--In circumstances of instant case limitation will run from date of knowledge ofappellant--It is settled principle law that matters should be decided on merits and not ontechnicalities--Appeal was allowed. [Pp. 57 & 58] A, B, C & D

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. IX, R. 13 & O. V, R. 20---Setting aside of ex-parte decree---Substituted service---Failure to order for affixation of notice on the house of defendant---Effect---Nonavailability of report of process-server---Effect---Appellant was aggrieved of the order ofthe Trial Court whereby his application for setting aside of ex-parte decree was dismissed---Respondent had filed a suit for recovery of damages which in early round of litigationwas remanded by High Court to the Trial Court whereby it was registered and notices wereissued to the parties for appearance---Respondent appeared before the Trial Court, whereasappellant remained absent---Trial Court directed the respondent to submit publication on23.04.2012 but he submitted the same on 24.04.2012---Court had power to adopt procedureof substituted service only when all efforts to effect the service upon the defendant in theordinary course were exhausted---No report of the process server was available as towhether summons were served or unserved upon the appellant---Trial Court had not orderedfor affixation of the notice at the outer door of the house of appellant or at his businessaddress nor the same was sent through courier service---Trial Court had failed to follow theprocedure as provided under R. 20 of O.V, C.P.C. therefore, the publication could not beconsidered as effective service of notice upon the appellant---Publication was made for thedate of 24.04.2012 but the appellant was not proceeded against ex-parte on the said dateand the matter was adjourned by the Trial Court for 27.04.2012--Appellant was proceededagainst ex-parte on 27.04.2012 without any publication for 27.04.2012, which was a graveillegality---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: The document outlined the petitioner's request for the recovery of her minor daughter, from alleged illegal custody and the events leading up to the filing of the petition. The court seems to have considered various aspects, including the petitioner's status as a Christian, her husband's imprisonment, and the circumstances surrounding Pumy Muskan's alleged conversion to Islam. The court also discussed legal principles related to freedom of religion, religious conversion, and the rights of parents or guardians. The court concluded that the petitioner, being the lawful guardian of Pumy Muskan, is entitled to her custody. The court rejected the request of the respondents to retain custody, citing reasons such as the petitioner's objection, lack of a prohibited relationship between Respondent No.6 and Pumy Muskan, and the illegality of her employment.