1. ' In furtherance of the order of this Court dated 25-1-1990 learned counsel files today a certified copy of the order sheet in Suit No, 161 of 1988 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sanghar and a similar copy of the case diary from 29-9-1988 to 12-7-1989.
2. ' A perusal of these documents together with the record of this Revision application would indicate that on 20-10-1988 a Bailiff of the Court, in respect of process issued for 6-11-1988, verified a report stating that the respondent No, 1, when attempted to be served, was stated by her son, who had come out of the house, to have gone to Karachi and such son refused to accept the process for her.
3. ' However, on 6-11-1988 such report was not submitted before the Court and the case was adjourned to 12-12-1988 for return of process. On 12-12-1988, the learned Court without applying its mind on the question whether the refusal had taken place by the respondent No, 1 herself or while she was in the house, ordered that registered A.D. Process be issued and the summons be served by affixation thereof at the last known address of the respondent No,
1. This was required to be done for 8-1-1989, which was fixed to be the next date of hearing. On 8-1-1989 the learned Court did not advert to the question of registered A.D. Process at all and on the basis of affixation of the process directed the case to proceed ex parte and adjourned it to 12-1-1989. Even at the present stage it is not known as to what happened to registered A.D. Process.
4. 'Refusal to acknowledge process, in order to be effective or equivalent of contumaciousness under Rule 17, Order V, C.P.C. Should either be of the party itself or of its representative but when an adult male member of the family in terms of Rule 15 of Order V ibid is offered such service and refuses to sign due acknowledgement, to attract Rule 20 of Order V, C.P.C., it must further be shown that the party whose adult male member of the family declined process was actually itself keeping out of the way with a view to avoiding process and that the refusal was part of a pre-conceived stratagem, as borne out by the overall circumstances. At any event, consequences of refusal to sign as acknowledgement pursuant to Rules 15 and 16 of Order V, C.P.C. Are envisaged in rule 17 of that Order and the serving officer, in such circumstances, is required to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house or other place where the defendant ordinarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. None of these were involved in these proceedings. Besides, when substituted service in terms of Rule 20 of Order V, C.P.C. Is directed the Court, before holding the substituted service good, should take stock of all modes in which the substituted process is ordered. Any disregard of these requirements, which emerge directly from the Rules and even on principles of natural justice, if shown to have resulted in detriment or prejudice to the party affected, should lead to recall of ex parte orders. In effect, acting on these principles, an appeal taken by the respondent No, 1 before the learned District Judge was, on pre-eminently just grounds, disallowed.
5. ' I have not been shown any reason whatsoever to take a different view of the situation particularly when neither the initial order of substituted service was duly warranted nor the substituted service, as ordered, was even properly effected or found to have been properly effected.
6. ' However, learned counsel says that the appeal before the learned District Judge was not competently taken. He maintains that such appeal was through an attorney but copy of the judgment does not show that the appeal was taken through an attorney. Nor is the memo of appeal filed before me to verify whether such appeal was so taken. It has been urged that such question was raised before the learned District Judge at the time of hearing of the appeal. In such context also I enquired from the learned counsel whether any Counter Affidavit or Objections were filed before that Court but he was unable to make any firm reply and, of course that being so, was also unable to file such copy, if any, here.
7. ' The foregoing are too flimsy in the way of grounds to call for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court and I would, therefore, dismiss this revision application in limine. The revision application having been dismissed, CMA 768 of 1989 also merits no consideration and is likewise dismissed.