' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 4-2-2002 whereby Civil Revision hearing No,2545 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Facts briefly are that the late husband of the respondent Khalid Rafique filed an ejectment petition on 23-4-1979 against Education Department/petitioner in which a school is being run in eight rooms double storied building alongwith other apertures at monthly rent of Rs,350 on the ground of default and damage to the property. The Rent Controller vide order, dated 5-4-1980 dismissed the petition. An appeal was filed which too was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 23-9-1980. Respondent filed Writ Petition No,11366 of 1980 whereupon a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the same and remanded the case to the Additional District Judge. After remand the appeal was again dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 4- 7-1994.
3. The respondent filed S.A.O. No,182 of 1984 and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order, dated 26-3-1999, accepted the same and remanded to the First Appellate Court to decide the same afresh.
4. On remand the matter was taken up by the learned Additional District Judge who accepted the petition vide his order, dated 7-4-2000 and gave three months' time to the petitioner to vacate the disputed premises.
5. The petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On the plea that no notice whatsoever was given to the Education Department. This application was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide his order, dated 18-10-2000. Both the orders of the Additional District Judge i.e, orders, dated 7-4-2000 and 18-10-2000 were challenged through Civil Revision No,2545 of 2000 which has been dismissed through the impugned order. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly argued that no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner after the remand. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this, petition. At the very outset we must say that the litigation is going on between the parties for more than two decades. The First Appellate Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has held as a fact that the petitioner was duly served. It is reflected from the impugned order that not only the petitioner/department but also the District Attorney was duly intimated about the proceedings before the Additional District Judge which culminated into ejectment order. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge in this regard which is in the following terms:- ' "The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Perusal of the record shows that the learned counsel for the parties were in attendance on 16-10-1999, 23-10- 1999, 29-10,1999 and 25-11-1999 when the case was transferred to the Court of Mr. Nazir Azhar, Additional District Judge for 4-1-2000, the learned counsel for the parties were in attendance. On 4- 1-2000, not only learned counsel for the respondent was in attendance but the learned Deputy District Attorney stated that he did not have brief with him nor the learned counsel, who has been appearing for petitioners had imparted any instructions to him. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 25-1-2000. On 25-1-2000, nobody was in attendance on behalf of the petitioner.
Accordingly, notice was directed to be issued to the Secretary, Education Department for 14-2- 2000. This notice was delivered in the office of the petitioner as per report of the process-server but the official receiving the notice recorded a note that full particulars should be supplied. In view of this objection notice were directed to be issued to the Secretary Education as well as to the learned District Attorney for 8-3-2000. In the notice issued to the Secretary Education for 9-3-2000, full particulars of the case were indicated. However, the notice issued to the District Attorney was served on 16-2-2000. In these circumstances, the learned First Appellate Court proceeded against the petitioner ex parte. Not only the Secretary Education was duly served it may also be observed that the Government Pleader in any Court shall be the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving processes against the Government issued by such Court. Therefore, service of notice on the District Attorney for 9-3-2000 was also due service of the petitioner".
' For what has been stated above this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.