8. Now comes the second Talb i.e. Talb-e-Ishhad. Mere sending of notice was not sufficient but service of its addressee was necessary to be proved, which is lacking in this case, because P.W.1 (Muhammad Shahid, Clerk Post Office) during cross examination deposed that on Ex.P1 address of the defendant (petitioner) is available, but Ex.P1 does not find mentioned caste and post office of the defendant. Akin to him, P.W.2 (Asif Ali, Postman), during cross examination, deposed that he could not tell who received the registry. Meaning thereby the service of addressee of the alleged notice was not affected. Even this aspect finds support from the fact the Acknowledgement Due, showing acceptance or refusal, was not brought on record; thus, this Talb was also not proved by the respondent as per mandate of law. In this regard reliance is placed on Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah (2007 SCMR 1105), Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866), Khan Afsar v. Afsar Khan and others (2015 SCMR 311), Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Muhammad Hanif through L.Rs. (2016 CLC Note 89- Lahore), Muhammad Akbar v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others (2016 CLC 1402-Lahore), Saeeda Ghazala and 3 others v. Tahira Naz and 10 others (2016 CLC 1438-Lahore), Amir Khan v. Muhammad Taj (2017 CLC Note 94), Haji Makhan through Legal Representatives v. Mian Muhammad Zaman (2017 CLC Note 117), Ali Muhammad v. Malka Hussain (2017 CLC 463-Lahore) and Basharat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Akbar (2017 SCMR 309).
Part of Judgment
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11
0 comments:
Post a Comment