' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner a tenant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. Of Sindh dated 31-5-1990 whereby an ex parte order of ejectment passed against the petitioner was maintained and its appeal dismissed.
2. The petitioner was tenant over a plot of land (No,60/1A, Ghulam, Hussain Qassim Road, Garden West, Karachi). The respondents purchased this plot of land on 7-4-1986 and sued for the ejectment of the petitioner on various grounds but when the petit loner appeared and contested those proceedings according, to the petitioner, it was unconditionally withdrawn by them. The petitioner was threatened with forcible eviction whereupon it instituted a suit. The parties were also involved in proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. In respect.Of the same plot of land. In this background of contentious litigation, a second application for ejectment of the petitioner was filed and it proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and an order of ejectment was passed on all the grounds taken up in the application. On coming to know of the ex parte decree the immediate reaction of the petitioner was to file an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Rent Controller and also to file an appeal. Ultimately, the petitioner chose to prosecute the appeal and withdrew the application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court has examined at great length the repeated efforts made to serve the present petitioner in the proceedings before the Rent Controller and found that the order of proceeding ex parte against him was justified and maintained the order of ejectment.
4. Mr. Nasim A. Farooqui, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the contentious litigation between the parties and the all out efforts of the respondents to oust the petitioner from the property. He emphasised that in spite of the efforts made to serve the notices, on the petitioner, he remained uninformed of the proceedings on account of improper service.
Even the newspaper selected for publishing the notices was one with very limited circulation.
5. We have examined the judgment and the record and find that in paragraph 2 of the High Court's judgment various steps taken to have the petitioner served in the proceedings have been enumerated and at least on eight occasions some sort of service was effected on him. All modes of service were tried. Notices by registered post were sent. Notices under Postal Certificates were sent. Notices were sent through the Bailiff. Notices were twice published in the newspaper. All this shows that whatever was in the power of the Court was done and repeatedly done in order to effect service on the petitioner. It was as a last resort that ex parte proceedings. Were taken.
6. In the circumstances the order of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner would appear to be amply justified and no interference in the orders passed is called for. Leave to appeal, is therefore, refused.