' Musarrat Ara respondent filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs, 24,500 as value thereof, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Lahore. The defendant was summoned through the process-server. Summons were also sent through registered post. The case was repeatedly adjourned for his appearance. He was served through citation in the newspaper but he failed to appear before the Court, so he was proceeded against ex parte and the suit was decreed ex parte on 17-12-1986. On 25-4-1987, the defendant- petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree on the ground that the summons were not properly served and the plaintiff-respondent had given his incomplete and wrong address in her suit. The application was resisted. The trial Court framed following issues:-
(i) Whether the application is within time?
(2) Whether there are sufficient reasons for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 17-12-1986?
(3) Relief.
' The petitioner led his evidence. Since the respondent failed to produce her evidence despite repeated adjournments, so her evidence was closed. The trial Court dismissed the application on 30-10-1989 as barred by time and also on merits. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge on 9-5-1990. Hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the defendant-petitioner was not personally served, therefore, he could file application for setting aside the ex parte decree within 30 days from the date of his knowledge of the decree against him; that there was no justification to reject the evidence of the petitioner more particularly when there was no evidence in rebuttal.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not agree with him. The summons were also sent to the petitioner through registered post. He was also served through citation in the newspaper. In its order dated 8-9-1986, the trial Court has stated that:-
4. {{URDU TEXT}} ' So the order for the service of the petitioner through citation in the newspaper was quite perfect.
The onus to prove issues 1 and 2 was on the petitioner. He appeared as a witness in proof of these issues and also produced one witness, yet he has not annexed the certified copies of the statement made by him and of the statements made by the witnesses produced by him with this Revision application though he under the amended provision of section 115, C.P.C. Was required to annex the copies of the statements he desired to relic upon. So it is not possible for this Court to appreciate as to whether the petitioner was not properly served and that whether or not there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance before the trial Court. While discussing issue No,2, the trial Court has stated that:- "The main reason agitated by the defendant-petitioner was that he was not properly served on his present postal address i,e. Chak No, 321/J.B. Tehsil Gojra District Toba Tek Singh where he was serving as Veterinary Officer. According to the document Ex.R.2, he was bound to remain at his station of posting day and night. However it has been admitted by him during the course of cross- examination that his permanent address was of Chak N. 356/J.B. Tchsil Gojra District Toba Tek Singh. It was also admitted by him that Chak No, 356/J.B. Was only at a distance of 10 miles from his place of posting. Still further he admitted that he had a motorcycle but he denied that he used to come daily to his place of permanent residence. The excuse put forward by him that he was not residing at his permanent address was not logical. Summons were repeatedly sent on the address of his permanent resident at Chak No, 356/J.B. And eventually an advertisement was made in daily newspaper "Nawa-e-Waqat". He was an educated man and was supposed to read newspaper.
Thus the evidence led by him on this point was not convincing. Although, there was no rebuttal evidence pn record yet the defendant petitioner has failed to substantiate this issue by his own evidence. Therefore, this issue stood unsubstantiated and the same is decided against the defendant/petitioner."
' There is nothing on the file of this revision application to controvert the aforesaid observations made by the trial Court. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision application fails and is dismissed in limine.