1. ' The respondent filed an application for ejectment against the appellant in respect of tenement No, 19 (new No, 106) Lakshmi Building M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, on the ground that the appellant has defaulted in payment of rent from June, 1977. The ejectment application was filed on 22-12-1977 and notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant for 25th February, 1978. The notice was accordingly issued and on 25-2-1978 as it had not been returned to the Controller, the hearing was adjourned to 11-3-1978. The Controller noted that appellant was not present on that day. On 11-3- 1978 the respondents counsel was present and appellant was absent but as notice had not been returned till then the learned Controller ordered to issue notice by registered post and through bailiff for 11-4-1978. It seems that on 11-4-1978 the office put up the notice issued for 25th February, 1978, from which it transpired that it had been duly served on the appellant. The learned Controller, therefore, recorded the aforesaid facts and held that the appellant had been duly served for appearance on 25 2-1978 but as it failed to appear on that date and subsequent dates, he decided to proceed against it ex parte, and the matter was fixed on 24-4-1978 for ex parte proof. On that date ex parte proof was filed by the respondent and order of ejectment was passed on 30th April, 1978. On 19-8-1978 the appellant filed an application for setting aside ejectment order passed against it. An affidavit was filed by Zarif H. Mir the Accountant of the Sind Provincial Co-operative Bank Lakshmi Building Branch, Karachi i.e, the appellant. He stated that the appellant was not properly served as service was effected on the Head Office and only last week the appellant has come to know about the ex parte order. A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent, in which it was denied that the notice was wrongly served or it was served at the head office. It was further pleaded that the application was barred by time, and that the default in appearance was negligent, intentional and deliberate. It was specifically stated that the appellant was duly served in the first week of January, 1978, for 25th February, 1978. It was further stated that before the ex parte order of ejectment was passed, the respondent through his Advocate's letter dated 14-2-1978 sent by registered post A/D had informed the appellant about the filing of the case and that the notice of the above ejectment case had been duly served on it. A copy of this letter was also annexed with the affidavit but no rejoinder was filed. The learned Controller by the impugned order dismissed the application holding that notice was received by the appellant on 12-1-1978 and it was aware of the proceedings but did not appear without sufficient cause.
2. ' Mr.K.B.Bhutto the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that as the service was affected on the head office, and not on the appellant which is a branch office, no proper service was effected on the appellant at all. This contention is based on the averment made in the affidavit filed by the Accountant of the appellant. This fact has been denied by the respondent in the counter-affidavit. The appellant did not file any rejoinder to controvert this denial nor produced any document or any affidavit of any responsible person of the head office to state that actually notice was served on the appellant's head office which is situated at a different address. If the notice had been served on the head office the same could have been proved by producing some record viz. Inward register maintained in the regular course of business. Even the employee of the head office who had received the notice could have filed his affidavit. No such step was taken by the appellant. The notice issued by the Controller was addressed to the appellant at 14 Lakshmi Building. Unfortunately part of the notice containing bailiff's report is mutilated and completely torn, but it seems to have been available when the learned Controller passed the order. On the left end of the notice there is a seal of the appellant with a signature acknowledging its receipt on 12th January, 1978. The appellant has not taken care even to explain who has signed for the Bank and affixed the stamp. If it is correct that the notice was served on the head office then the signature would have been of some employee who was serving at the head office but it ,has not been explained at all, nor' his affidavit has been filed, therefore, it cannot be established that notice was served at the head office. The deponent who has filed his affidavit in support of the application did not disclose his source of information as he is employed with the appellant branch and is not working in the head office. This lapse on the part of the applicant completely destroys the contention that notice was served at the head office and no proper service was affected on the appellant.
3. ' Mr. K.B. Bhutto the learned counsel then contended that on 25-2-1978 matter was adjourned to 11- 3-1978 when notice was ordered to be issued for 11-4-1978, therefore, the service of notice issued earlier was not accepted as proper and Court was duty bound to have informed the appellant of the next date of hearing. It may be noticed that when the Controller passed the order on 25th February, and 11th March, 1978 notice issued for 25th February, 1978 had not been returned and was not placed before him. From the Controller's record it is clear that a note was made on 13-3-1978 that the notice to the appellant was received duly served and was placed on record. Mr. Bhutto has relied on M/s. Rehman v. Industrial Development Bank Ltd. PLD 1981 SC 21 and has referred to an observation at page 31 to the following effect:- "On the contention of the plaintiff's counsel that it was the duty of the defendant and his counsel even when not informed about the relevant dates to inspect the Court registers so as to become aware of the date of hearing, it was observed that these registers are maintained for the use of the Court itself and that whenever a date is fixed for the hearing or date is adjourned it is bounden duty of the Court to inform parties or their counsel or their representative of such dates. If they are not so informed the party not informed will not be bound by the proceedings."
4. ' Mr.Rahmani the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that this observation is not applicable to the present case. This contention seems to be correct. It is the duty of the Court to inform the parties their Advocates or representatives who are present in Court about the adjourned date and if there is any lapse in giving such information the party is not bound by the proceeding.
5. This rule laid down by the Supreme Court will apply in a case where in pursuance of a notice issued the party appears before the Court and if the case is adjourned or any date is given such party should be informed of it. This rule cannot be stretched to apply to a case where although the notice has been served the party fails to appear and then turns around to say that it is the duty of the Court to intimate him about the next date of hearing in spite of the fact that he has defaulted in appearing on the date fixed by the Court. Unless a party is vigilent and attends the Court in pursuance of the notice diligently it cannot claim that it should be informed time and again of the next date of hearing even if he does not appear.
6. ' Mr. Rahmani has referred to Abdul Shakoor Haji Aminuddin v. Miss Mumtaz and others PLD 1961 Kar. 145 where Kyani, C.J. has followed the following rule laid down in PLD 1952 Lah.
7. 456.
8. 'We think it appears to have been understood that once a party receives intimation of an action it is for him to pursue it and to keep himself in touch with the proceedings, either personally or through his counsel."
9. Therefore, a party who has been served with a notice is duty found to appear on the date of hearing and pursue the matter. If the A party appears, and he is not intimated of the next date of hearing then in view of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court he will no be bound by the subsequent proceedings. In the present case, the appellant though served did not appear, and therefore, cannot seek protection of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court. Mr. Rahmani the learned counsel has referred to Afzal All Gill v . Thal Development Authority PLD 1982 Lah. 727 where it was held that if in pursuance of a show-cause notice duly served on a party, he fails to appear then he is not entitled to a fresh notice for the adjourned hearing. Where notice or summons is served on a party he is duty bound to appear and pursue the proceedings from date to date. If he fails to appear on the fixed date he cannot expect the Court to follow him and intimate him of the next date of hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case after service of notice for.-25th February, 1978 as the appellant failed to appear on that date, without reasonable cause, he was not entitled to fresh notice. The order of the Controller for issuing fresh notice was in ignorance of the bailiff's report and it did not give any right to the appellant to remain absent till fresh notice was served.
10. ' The learned counsel for the respondent contended that by his letter, dated 14-2-1978 while returning the cheque remitted by the appellant he had clearly stated that ejectment application has been filed and it has been served on the appellant. The appellant was thus made aware of the ejectment proceedings but as the case number and its full particulars were not furnished it is not possible that on the basis of such information any liability can be fixed on the appellant. It is however, clear that although some information was conveyed to the appellant sufficient to alarm it, no steps were taken or even inquiries were made properly and immediately.
11. ' The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.