Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.--The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the work in question was awarded to the respondent contractor in the year 1996 through letter of acceptance dated 1.7.1996. The work in dispute has been transferred to the Appellant/Defendant No, 2 with all rights and liabilities. The respondent had completed the work allegedly to the entire satisfaction of the Appellant No, 2 The respondent submitted bill to Appellant No,
2. Appellant No, 2 failed to pay the bill to the respondent contractor. The respondent contractor sent a legal notice to the appellants on 2.10.1998. The appellant failed to pay the outstanding dues of the respondent. The respondent being aggrieved filed suit for recovery of Rs, 262,53,15/- before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. Summons were issued by the learned trial Court to the applicants. Appellants' representative entered appearance before the trial Court on various dates. The appellants failed to file written statement and the trial Court had struck off the defence of the appellants vide order dated 6.11.1999. Thereafter thee-parte evidence was recorded by the trial Court and the trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2000. Hence the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellants submits that the respondent was allowed work "Flood fighting of 'X Head Spur at Mulla Hamza during flood season, 1996. The work in dispute was transferred to XEN Flood Bund Division, Narowal. Subsequently, Flood Division was only for Narowal not elsewhere although the work in dispute was executed in Sahiwal. The work in question was still disputed whereas it had been completed as alleged by the respondent. The concerned SDO had expired in December, 1998 and all the relevant record was kept by him. He further submits that learned trial Court erred in law to struck off right of defence of the appellants as the service of the appellants was not effected in accordance with law. He further submits that respondents secured impugned decree with the connivance of the staff of the appellants. He further submits that documents produced by the respondent are photo-copies and are not in accordance with record of the appellants.
3. Learned counsel of the respondent submits that trial Court decreed the suit after completing all the legal formalities. He further submits that appellants did not file written statement well in time.
After providing various opportunities to the appellants the learned trial Court struck off the defence of the appellants vide order dated 6.11.1999. The appellant's representative entered appearance on various dates subsequently but did not cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent. He further submits that bill submitted by the respondent was not denied by PW.
2. He further submits that documents relied by the respondent are public documents, therefore, trial Court was justified to decree the suit of the respondent. He further submits that Assistant District Attorney entered appearance on behalf of the appellants before the trial Court.
4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record ourselves.
5. The report of process server on the summons issued to the appellants reveals that summons were not served upon the appellants which were received by the official of the appellants and name of the official who had received the summons is also not mentioned in the report of process serve. The trial Court also did not make any effort to get the service of the appellants be effected 'under Order 27, Rules 1 to 4 of C.P.C. Therefore, service of the appellants was not properly effected and is in violation of mandatory provisions of Order 27 CPC. As such ex-parte order is without lawful authority. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down in Shah Alam's case (NLR 1989 Civil 559). The impugned ex-parte order is not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Chaudhry Parvez Ahmad's case (1993 CLC 660). The order sheet also does not contain the name of the representative of the appellants who appeared on various dates before the trial Court. The trial Court did not issue a single notice to the appellants for their appearance. The record of the trial Court does not contain authorization letter of the representative of the appellants to appear before the Court. Therefore, the same is in violation of mandatory provisions of Order 27(2) CPC. The argument of the learned counsel of the respondent that Assistant District Attorney entered appearance on behalf of the appellants before the trail Court is not in consonance with the record of the trial Court. The A.D.A. has not filed any power of attorney and has not appeared on any date as is evident from the order sheet of the trial Court. In this view of the matter, we find that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of CPC on the ground that, service of the appellants was not properly effected. When the basic lacuna of such a nature exists then the superstructure shall have to fall on the ground automatically. We are fortified by the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:--
1. Crescent Sugar Mills case (PLD 1982 Lahore 1).
2. Yousaf Ali's case (PLD 1958 S.C. 104).
In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal is accepted with no order as to costs, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 29.5.2003. The appellants are directed to file written statement on the said date. The appellants are also directed to initiate inquiry in the administrative side as to who had appeared before the. trial Court without authorization of the appellants. In case any officer/official is responsible who had entered appearance before the trial Court without authorization of the appellants then the appellants are directed to proceed against him under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and criminal proceedings shall also be initiated against him. The appellants are directed to complete this process in the administrative side within three months. They are also directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court within the stipulated period.