' This civil revision has arisen out of a representative suit brought by the respondents, Nawab Khan and another, against the petitioners, Khushab Gul and another, for a declaration to the effect that certain land was a graveyard and the petitioners had no right to, or interest in that land. The respondents also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from making any construction over the disputed land. The suit which was resisted by the petitioners, was decreed by the trial Court and the petitioners' appeal against the judgment and decree of the said Court has also failed. They have, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court did not follow the procedure as laid down in Order I, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the service of notice of institution of the suit on all the persons interested in the land in dispute and, therefore, the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance suffered from an illegality for which they were liable to be set aside.
Elaborating his plea, the learned counsel submitted that as many as 107 persons, whose list was filed by the respondents, were also interested in the suit and were required to be served personally or through public advertisement but they were not served accordingly.
3. The aforesaid objection was also advanced before the learned Appellate Court but it was repelled with the following observations :- "So far as the first contention of the appellant is concerned that the procedure prescribed by Order I, rule 8, C. P. C. Has not been adopted, it is not proved on record. An application under Order -I, rule 8, C. 1). C. Was made on 11-10-1975 alongwith list of 107 persons interested in the suit on which signature as well as L. T. I. Have duly affixed by those persons. Order of the learned lower. Court dated 20-1-1976 shows that notice of institution of the suit was given to all the persons interested in the suit by beat of drum. Thus the procedure prescribed by Order I, rule 8, C. P. C. Was fully complied with."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the service of notice by beat of drum was not service through public advertisement and, therefore, the view taken by the learned appellate Court was erroneous. According to him, service through public advertisement was service by means of proclamation in a newspaper. He did not cite any authority to support his contention.
5. To may mind, service of notice of institution of suit through public advertisement means the publication of such notice with a view to enabling the persons interested in the suit to take part in its proceedings. The manner in which such publication is to be made is to be determined by the Court in each particular case. In the present case, the Court had allowed the notice to be given by beat a drum, which is a well-known mode of publicity in or country and is generally resorted to when any matter is required to be notified to a section of public living in one locality and not to the public at large. In case the view expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is adopted, it will amount to placing a very restricted interpretation on the expression "public advertisement". If the Legislatures wanted to convey that by public advertisement they meant proclamation in the newspaper only they would have used the words "proclamation in a newspaper" instead of the words "public advertisement". They employed the words "public advertisement with a view to allowing service through all possible means of publicity including proclamation in a newspaper. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that the service of notice by beat of drum was also service o notice through public advertisement and thus the provision of rule 8 of Order 1 were duly observed by the learned trial Courts.
6. The unanimous verdict of the two Courts was not assailed by the learned counsel on any other ground.
7. The revision petition, therefore, fails. It is dismissed in limine.