MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 1.7.1998 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through which revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. A decree for recovery of possession of the property in dispute was passed in the suit filed by the respondents against the petitioner on 6.6..1979. It was ex-parte decree. The petitioner, inspite of service of summons did not appear and contest the suit. On 12.9.1979, Nawab Din, deceased- petitioner made an application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151, CPC for setting aside the said ex-parte decree which was contested by the respondents decree holders in which issues were framed and evidence led by the parties.
3. The trial Court after going through the evidence, came to the conclusion that the notices/summons were duly served on deceased Nawab Din, therefore, ex parte order passed against him did not suffer from any illegality on that account. The application was dismissed through order dated 24.1.1984. Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed through order dated 14.10.1983 by the learned Additional District Judge, against which revision petition filed by him has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 1.7.1998 by the learned Judge in chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
4. In order to prove that the petitioner was duly served in accordance with law, the respondents examined Process Server who served the summons of the Court on one of the sons of the petitioner namely Muhammad Hafeez. The notices were also issued through registered post and post Man also appeared and stated that he served the notices on Muhammad Amin, the other son of the petitioner. Nawab Din, deceased-petitioner when appeared as his on witness, admitted that his address given in the title of the plaint was correct. It was also admitted by him that he was running a factory in partnership with his sons, Muhammad Hafeez and Muhammad Amin and in the ordinary course, his Dak used to be received by his two sons.
5. The petitioner did not produce any satisfactory evidence as to why he did not appear and also nothing was stated in the application as to in what manner and through whom he came to know about the ex-parte decree. The respondents claimed ownership of the property on the basis of transfer of the same by the Settlement Department but on the other hand nothing has been stated in the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree as to under what title or rights the petitioner was in possession of the property, therefore, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner had not claimed title in the property but merely possession thereof.
6. The orders passed by the Courts below are based on elaborate, correct and careful appraisal of evidence which have not been shown to have suffered from any misreading, misconstruction or non-reading thereof.
7. Nawab Din, deceased-petitioner was rightly held to have legally and duly served in the suit, therefore, ex-parte decree passed against him was not open to any legal exception.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merit, which is accordingly, dismissed and leave refused.