' M s t Nasreen Begum Muhammad Azeem plaintiffs-respondents No,3 and 4 had instituted a suit for maintenance allowance in the Court of Judge Family Court, Liaquatpur respondent No,2 which was decreed ex parte vide order and decree , dated 23-10-1998, after 13 days of institution of the suit. An execution petition was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents Nos.3 and 4 (decree-holders) for satisfaction of the decree. The petitioner came to know of the said decree when he was summoned by the Executing Court. He filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 24-2-1999, wherein, the objection was taken by the petitioner that the plaintiffs and the Presiding Officer of the Court are residents of the same village and they have close relations, that is why, the plaintiffs who are residents of District Okara, have filed their suit in his Court at Liaqatur and the Presiding Officer, without performing the legal requirements of law within 13 days passed the impugned order and decree. The Presiding Officer of the Court sent the application of the petitioner to the District Judge Rahimyar Khan on 28-4-1999 without giving any date to the petitioner. The learned District Judge entrusted the application to the Judge Family Court, Rahimyar Khan. The trnasferee Court did not issue any notice to the petitioner and dismissed this application for, non- prosecution on 1-10-1999. The petitioner filed 'another application on 7-4-2000 for restoration of the earlier application and setting aside the ex-parte order and decree. The respondents Nos.3 and 4 contested the application and the Court, through its order, dated 7-5-2001- accepted the application of the petitioner subject to deposit of Rs,1,50,000 in the Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order, dated 7-5-2001 passed by the Judge Family Court Liaqatpur through an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Liaquatpur vide its judgment, dated 13-9-2001. The said judgment has been assailed through the instant writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the trial Court as well as the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court are too harsh and the imposition of condition to deposit Rs,1,50,000 is contrary to law.
3. Conversely ,the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The Judge Family Court, Liaqatpur while setting aside the judgment and decree has imposed the condition on the judgment debtor (petitioner) to deposit the decreed amount of Rs, 1,50,000 in the Court till 18-5-2001, failing which the application for setting aside the ex parte decree shall stand dismissed automatically.
6. There was serious allegation against the Presiding Officer of the Court who passed the decree after 13 days of the institution of the suit hurriedly and the petitioner was condemned unheard.
From the perusal of the order of the Judge Family Court, dated 23-10-1998 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs ex parte it reveals that summons for service upon the defendant were issued through telegram and registered post on the address given in the plaint by the plaintiffs which was not received back undelivered and on 17-10-1998 believing the same as served the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte while on the adjourned date i,e, 21-10-1998 when the ex parte evidence was being recorded it was found that the registered envelope received back with a report that three attempts were made to effect service upon the defendant, his family members informed the process server that the defendant-petitioner had gone to Lahore and refused to accept service. In spite of that no further mode of service was adopted by the Judge Family Court to satisfy his conscience nor substituted service was effected upon the petitioner. The ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos.3 and 4 has been passed by the Judge Family _Court hurriedly and arbitrarily without satisfying his conscience and no other mode of service was adopted by the Court.
7. However, the Court has set aside the ex parte decree subject to condition of depositing Rs,1,50,000 (decretal amount). This condition is too harsh, therefore, this writ petition is partly accepted and the impugned order to the extent of depositing Rs,1,50,000, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to furnish surety bond equal to the decretal amount of a person of sound financial position. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a period of 6 months from the receipt of this order.