' This petition seeks revision of the order of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 30th January, 1980, rejecting the petitioner's application under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil'Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree passed on the 27th November, 1978, for the recovery of articles of dowry or in the alternative Rs, 40,009 as value there of favour of the respondent and against the petitioner and of the learned.. Additional District Judge, Labore, dated the 12th July, 1981, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the first mentioned order. Mirza Muhammad Yousuf Baig, Petitioner, married Mst. Saeeda Parveen, respondent, on the 8th February, 1968. The marriage ended in divorce which became effective on the 27th March, 1973. On the 22nd March, 1976, the respondent instituted suit against the petitioner for recovery of her articles of dowry and in the alternative asked for realization of its value amounting to Rs, 40,000. On the 18th July, 1977, the learned trial Civil Judge directed that as it appeared difficult to serve summons upon the petitioner in the ordinary way his service should be effected by means of publication of proclamation in the monthly Istehkam-e-Pakistan, Lahore, for the 7th September, 1977. The proclamation did not appear in Istehkam-e-Pakistan though the hearing of the suit had to be adjourned on a number of occasions. On the 1st November, 1978, the learned trial Court ordered that the proclamation should be published in the daily Siasat, Lahore, directing the petitioner to appear before it on the 27th November, 1978. The proclamation was published in the issue of Siasat of the 8th November, 1978.
As the petitioner failed to put in appearance on the 27th November, 1978, ex parte proceedings were started against him and without receiving any evidence from the respondent ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner that very day.
2. On the 17th June, 1979, the petitioner moved application for getting the ex parte decree set aside.
He averred that he had not been served with summons in the suit nor he had any knowledge of the pendency of suit or of passing of the decree. He blamed the respondent for furnishing his wrong address in the suit. According to him he came to know of the decree on the 14th June, 1979, during arguments in another appeal between the parties pending before Sheikh Muzaffar Hussain, Additional District Judge, Lahore.
3. The respondent contested the application, controverted the petitioner's assertions and raised plea of limitation. She maintained that his address given in the suit was correct that he was aware of the pendency of the suit and that he had intentionally defaulted in making appearance.
4. The learned trial as also the appellate Court formulated the view that the petitioner's address given by the respondent was correct, that he had avoided to accept service of summons in the first instance and consequently resort to substituted service had to be taken. Having found his service through publication of proclamation to be in order the learned Courts did not find it difficult to endorse the validity of the ex parte decree against him. His application having been brought after thirty days of passing of the decree was treated as out of time. The application as well as appeal were dismissed.
5. Admittedly the process-server entrusted with the service of summon upon the petitioner could not locate and never reached his place of residence. He returned the process unserved with the short report that he could not find where the petitioner lived. There is no material on the record indicating that the petitioner refused or made any attempt to avoid acceptance of service of summons. In these circumstances the learned trial Court could A not be said to be satisfied, even if the petitioner's address given by the respondent in, the suit was accepted to be correct, that there existed any reason to believe that the petitioner was avoiding service of summons o could not be served in the ordinary way for ordering his' substituted servie as contemplated by Order V, rule 20 of the Cede of Civil Procedure. Hen its order for effecting substituted service of the petitioner by means of publication of proclamation in the newspaper loses the aura of validity and consequently the substituted service cannot be treated as effective for the purpose of proceeding expert against him. The learned Court by order in substituted service of the petitioner without justifiable legal basis committed material irregularity. The summons could not be said to have been served upon the petitioner. Therefore, the terminus a quo for filing application for setting aside ex parte decree is, under Article 164 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, the date of acquisition of knowledge of the decree by the petitioner. The petitioner mentioned in his application as well as stated in the witness-box that he had come to know of passing of the decree on the 14th June, 1979, during the course of arguments in the cases with the respondent pending in the Court of Sheikh Muzaffar Hussain, Additional District Judge, Lahore. The petitioner was not cross-examined on this point. There is no reason for not accepting this fact at face value. The application filed three days after his acquiring knowledge of the decree was well within time. The findings of the learned Courts below to the contrary cannot be endorsed.
6. In view of the above this petition is accepted, the impugned orders of the learned trial and the appellate Courts are set aside and the suit is remanded to the learned District Judge, Lahore, who will entrust it to a Civil Judge for trial according to law. As unpleasant litigation between the estranged parties is fairly old, the learned Civil Judge seized with the trial of the suit is directed to give it priority over other cases and decide it within three months. Likewise the learned District Judge or the Additional District Judge hearing the appeal arising out of the decision of the learned Civil Judge will dispose it of within three months. The parties will bear their own costs of this petition. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Lahore, on the 15th March, 1983.