1. ' The appellant has challenged the order of the Controller whereby he has been ejected from house bearing No. 141 Bihar Colony, Karachi, of which is a tenant. The respondent filed an ejectment application on 22-12-1980. and notice was issued for 1-3-1981 which was returned unserved as the appellant was stated not to be present at the time of service. Thereafter several notices were issued and returned unserved but notice sent for hearing on 26-5-1981 was delivered to Abida Parvin daughter of the appellant. However the learned Controller did not consider it, as proper service on the appellant and ordered to issue fresh notice to the appellant for 28-7-1981. This notice remained unserved and again notices were issued for 15-10-1981 and 15-11-1981 which were also returned unserved. The notice issued for 30-11-1981 was returned unserved and the Bailiff reported that when he went in the morning his mother told that he was sleeping and he did not come out from the house; he, therefore, affixed it on the outer door in the presence of the respondent but no affidavit of the respondent was filed to that effect. On 12-12-1981 the respondent filed an application under Order V, rule 20, C.P.C. for substituted service. The Controller granted the application on 13- 12-1981 and ordered for service of notice in the following manner:-- "(1) By publication in any Urdu newspaper having wide circulation.
(2) Through Bailiff.
(3) By affixing copy of the notice on the outer door of the house of opponent.
(4) By pasting the copy of the notice on Court notice board.
(5) Through Registered A/D."
2. ' After this order was passed the notice was published in the daily 'Hurrayyat', dated 24-12-1981 for hearing which was fixed on 4-1-1982. From the record of the Controller it seems that no other process of any nature was issued after 13-12-1981. However from the order sheet it is clear that on 17-1-1982 the learned Controller passed the following order:-- 'Advocate for applicant present publication attached in file, notice be not issued for Court notice board, by affixation and registered A/D, case adjourned to 27-1-1982 for service.'
3. ' From this order it seems that the learned Controller had reviewed the order passed on 13-12-1981 and has done away with the process which was to be issued by pasting on the Court notice board, affixation on the outer door of the appellant's premises and by registered post A/D. However service through the Bailiff was maintained and for that purpose the matter was adjourned for 27-1- 1982 for service. The admitted position is that no process was paid and no notice was issued nor any attempt was made to serve the appellant directly. When the matter was called on 27-1-1982 the learned Controller passed the following order:-- 'Matter called Advocate for applicant present. None present for opponent, though notice is published in daily newspaper 'Hurrayyat', dated 24-12-1981. Notice was also sent by registered A/D but received unserved with the endorsement that opponent is not available at given address. The notice is also affixed on the outer door of the opponents residence, as per Bailiff's report. Copy of notice is also pasted on Court notice board. Hence service held good, against opponent. Put up for 7-2-1982 for further order.'
4. ' Thereafter the ex parte proof was filed and the impugned order of ejectment was granted. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was no proper service in the eyes of law and therefore order of ejectment passed by the learned Controller is a nullity and in pursuance thereof the appellant could not be ejected. The only ground for pressing this objection is that the order passed on 13-12-1981 was not complied with and service has not been effected as ordered by the Controller. From the record it is established that except publication in the newspaper none of the modes required by Order, dated 13-12-1981 were complied with. Mr. Khalid Athar the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the respondent had paid the process several times and notices were sent to the appellant who was avoiding the service. In this regard reference has been made to the various reports of the Bailiff who had reported that either the appellant was not available at the time of service or it has been served on his daughter and on one occasion he was sleeping and did not come out of his house and the notice sent by registered post was returned undelivered. By making reference to these facts the learned counsel contended that all the required modes of service were exhausted and, therefore, mere publication was due service on the appellant. There can be no doubt that before publication all modes required under law were exhausted by the Controller and it was for this reason that the learned Controller granted the application for publication of notice. However it seems that the Controller has been cautious because while granting the application under Order V, rule 20, C.P.C. he had ordered for service by five modes. This fact establishes that the previous service effected by affixing on the outer door of the appellant, return of registered letter undelivered or avoidance by the appellant was not treated sufficient to hold the same as proper service on the appellant. Therefore proper service could be effected only if order, dated 13-1-1981 was complied with. In this regard reference has also been made to order, dated 17-1-1982 where then learned Controller had gone away with the three modes of service and directed the service to be effected by publication and through the Bailiff. The Controller is not entitled to review his order and therefore the order, dated 17-1-1982 was not proper.
5. Even if for argument sake it is accepted that in the circumstances and facts of the case such a course could be adopted by the Controller, the fact remains that except the publication, the service was not affected through the Bailiff as required by order, dated 17-1-1982. In these circumstances it is to be seen whether there was any proper and effective service. It is correct that the publication by itself is sufficient service but if the Court has directed the service to be effected in other manner simultaneously with the publication such direction should be complied with. It is not the object of law to pass the order without offering any opportunity to the defendant. Mr. Mukhtar Naqvi the learned counsel has referred to 1984 CLC 2854 from which it is impliedly inferred that if all modes of service as directed by the Controller or Presiding Officer are not complied with, there can be no proper service.
6. ' The order of the learned Controller, dated 27-1-1982 gives the impression that the notice was sent by registered post, and was pasted on the outer door of the appellant as well as on Court notice board. All these processes were issued before 13-11-1981, therefore, the learned Controller has not properly applied his mind to the facts of the case. In the circumstances I hold that mere publication was not proper service on the appellant because other modes required by the learned Controller were not complied with. I may make it clear that if the application for substituted service by publication would have been granted without requiring service to be effected by other modes also then the publication by itself would have been a proper and valid service. This is not the case here. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order on payment of cost of Rs.750 which should be deposited in this Court within two weeks and the respondent's Advocate will be entitled to withdraw it. The case is remanded to the learned XVII Senior Civil Judge and Controller, Karachi. The appellant should file written statement within two weeks from today and the Controller is directed to dispose of the case within six months.
7. ' The office is directed to send the R & P immediately.