' The present revision petition has been filed, by WAPDA challenging the orders of the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali dated 8-5-1996 by virtue of which he rejected the application moved by it for setting aside of the ex parte decree passed in favour of Sanaullah and others in an appeal pending adjudication before him in which the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 2-2-1993 had been set aside and the suit of Sanaullah etc. Had been decreed ex parte.
2. The facts are that Sanaullah and others filed a civil suit for compensation with the assertions that the suit property situated in District Mianwali owned by them was compulsorily acquired by WAPDA for construction of Chashma Barrage Project. The award was announced on 31-5-1971. The owners Sanaullah and others being' dissatisfied took up the matter with the Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali where the compensation was enhanced. WAPDA went in appeal before this Court from where the appeal was dismissed and the plaintiff on this score claimed compensation on account of having suffered physical and mental torture for a long period. This suit was resisted by the WAPDA and the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 2-2-1993. Sanaullah and others feeling themselves aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court from where their appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 2-2-1993 was set aside and the suit of the present respondents/ plaintiffs was decreed to the extent of Rs,25,000 on 11-12-1993, by way of ex parte proceedings. The present petitioner filed an application dated 2-6-1994 for setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 11-12-1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge on 5-6-1996 dismissed the application for setting aside of the ex parte order/decree and the present petitioner feeling itself aggrieved has filed the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for both the parties has been heard. The question agitated is that ex parte proceedings, order and decree that was ultimately passed against WAPDA by the Court of learned Additional District Judge and the application for setting aside of it was moved and reply to this application by Sanaullah and others was submitted, whether it was mandatory for the Court to frame issues or to dispose it of in a summary manner. In the application to set aside the ex parte decree the question of service of WAPDA in response to summons issued by the learned Additional District Judge on the entertainment of appeal by Sanaullah and others is in question. WAPDA alleges non-service of notice and that on account of this fact there was a sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte order and decree. These questions could not be determined without framing of issues and IA recording of evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted it that the summons in question were duly served upon the petitioner, therefore, there was no necessity for framing of issues and recording of evidence.
5. Giving due consideration to the submission of both the parties and perusing the material made available, as a question in issue raised in the application to set aside ex parte order and decree is that of service or non-service of WAPDA in the appeal, whether there was sufficient cause to appear before the Court in spite of service if proved and when WAPDA was proceeded ex parte, whether there was sufficient cause or not to set aside ex parte decree, which could not be disposed of without framing of issues and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties to produce their evidence in this respect. As such the order of the learned Additional District Judge suffers from material irregularity.
6. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 8-5-1996 are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional' District Judge with the direction to frame issues arising out of the pleadings with regard to application to set aside the ex parte order and decree moved by WAPDA in the above said appeal and then give an opportunity to both the parties to produce their evidence in this regard and then dispose of the application in accordance with law. The learned Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order. In order to compensate the respondents. For the delay caused in the matter the petitioner is subjected to costs of Rs,5,000.