1. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--The petitioner purchased a shop bearing Custodian No. G/1 on an evacuee building bearing No. R.C-12/96-IV-A-9458 situated at Ranchore Line, Karachi from the Settlement Authorities\for a sum of Rs. 3,000 and obtained a PTO dated 4-6-1963. The PTD of the shop could not be issued as file was allegedly lost in the Settlement Department. By order, dated 1--9-1971 the file relating to this property was reconstructed and PTD was issued on 13-12-1971. This shop was in possession of one Dr. S.M. Sabihuddin fronm whom the petitioner demanded rent from the date of the provisional transfer order Dr. S.M. Sabihuddin instead of paying the rent challenged the title of the petitioner before the Settlement Commissioner. The parties however compromised aril Dr. S.M.
2. Sabihuddin agreed to pay Rs. 35 as rent and an order to that effect was passed on 6-12-1973. He defaulted in payment of rent and the petitioner filed an ejectment case bearing No. 2483/1982. In his written statement he pleaded that the shop is an evacuee trust property and contended that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist. When this plea was raised the plaintiff made inquiries and it was found that Dr. Sabihuddin had prevailed upon the respondent No. 3 who instituted a case under sections 8 and 10 of Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal)
3. Act after 20 years of the disposal of the property. The petitioner's address was given as Shop No. G- 1 bearing No. R.C. 12/96 Karachi which was in possession of Dr. S. Sabihuddin. The service of notice of hearing was effected by publication in daily `fang' and the case was heard ex part,. The petitioner came to know about the order in the last week of March, 1984. The petitioner then approached the respondent No. 3 for obtaining certified copy of the order but it had not been supplied till the tiling of this petition. The petitioner filed revision application and also applied for condonation of delay and enclosed a photo copy of the order of the Ch. Imran supplied by Dr. Sabihuddin but the revision application was dismissed on the ground that certified photo copy had not been placed on record and it was barred by time. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. However, Mr. S.0- Mujtaba the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has appeared and contested the petition.
4. Mr. Maruf A.I Khan the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the notice of hearing of the case filed by respondent No. 2 was never served on the petitioner and the order passed by the Chairman of respondent NO. 2 was without any notice and without hearing him. Vie have examined the record of the respondent No. 2 from which it seems that -the petitioner had filed his written statement in reply to the application under sections 8 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act. It 1s also clear from the record that a notice was published in daily `Jang' giving a list of cases together with the date fixed for hearing the cases. Amongst them was the case filed against the petitioner. According to Mr. S.H. Mujtaba this was the practice which was followed by the respondent No. 2 and cases were heard after duly notifying the parties through Press advertisement. Such a practice is not backed by any rule or regulation prescribed by the Evacuee Trust (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. Resort to intimation by publishing notice in the newspaper can be made only if efforts to serve the party directly had remained unsuccessful or that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the party is avoiding the service of notice. In the present case although the petitioner had been intimated of the institution of A the case and he had filed his written statement he was not properly and duly served with the notice of date of hearing with the result that he could not appear. The order was therefore passed without hearing him. This was a clear infringement of the principles of the natural Justice and this aspect was not considered by the respondent No. V while considering the revision application. If' any order is passed without hearing any party or without any notice to him then the period of limitation for filing appeal or revision should be computed from the date when the impugned order came to the knowledge of the aggrieved party. Considering the case from this angle the petitioner's revision application could not be termed as barred by time.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the petitioner had paid all the dues and PTO had been issued in his favour as far back as on 4-6--1963 and PTD could not be issued due to default of the Settlement Department itself, its issuance after June, 1968 (as it was issued in the year 1971) will not entitle the respondent No. 2 to cancel the same. In this regard the learned counsel has referred to 1987 CLC 1010 and PLD 1987 Kar. 290. Mr. S.H. Mujtaba the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has contended that in PLD 1983 Kar. 374 a contrary view, from the view expressed in the aforesaid authorities has been taken. He also stated that although the respondent No. 2 has not appealed against the judgment reported in 1987 CLC 1010, leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment reported in PLD 1987 Kar. 290 which is based on 1987 CLC 1010 and the Supreme Court has been pleaded to grant leave to the respondent No.2. There are two conflicting views of the same High Court with regard to the power of respondent No. 2 to cancel the PTD issued after June, 1968 which is pending final adjudication before the Supreme Court. We would therefore, refrain from expressing our opinion on this question as in our view the petition can be disposed of on a short point as discussed above. We, C therefore, declare that the impugned order dated 7-8-1982 passed by the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property and the order dated 17-4-1987 passed by respondent No. 1 have been passed without lawful authority and are of no legal effect. The case is remanded to be heard by the Chairman, the respondent No. 1, after due notice to the petitioner.