' The office has raised objection that the appeal is barred by the limitation. According to the office, the ejectment order was passed on 30th November, 1981 whereas the present appeal has been filed in this Court under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 29th November, 1983. It is submitted by the learned counsel that according to the appellant service of the notice of the ejectment case has not been effected upon the appellant and the order holding the service to be good had been obtained through its representation by the respondent. According to the learned counsel, as soon the appellant1 came to know about the passing of the impugned ejectment order, an application for setting aside the ex parte order was moved by the appellant but the same has now been rejected by order, dated 17th November, 1983. It is submitted that this appeal has been filed within 30 days of the order, dated 17th November, 1983 of the Rent Controller dismissing the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte order.
2. Reliance is also placed on 1982 CLC 1314. The question that is to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant had been properly served in accordance with law of the main ejectment case. If the appellant had not been served, and if the application for setting aside the ex parte order had been moved soon as the appellant came to know about it, the present appeal will not be barred by time of the appeal has been filed within 30 days of the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application.
3. The objection of the office is accordingly overruled. The case may now be fixed for katcha peshi.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that execution is fixed tomorrow where it likely that the writ of possession will be issued. It further ordered that till the further orders of this Court the appellant will not be ejected.