1. ' This order will dispose of the C.Rev. No,S-38 of 2000 and C.Rev. No,S-39 of 2000 as common questions of facts and law are involved.
2. ' Present revision applications are directed against the judgments, dated 19-4-2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Khairpur in Civil Appeal No,54 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No,55 of 1998 by which the appeals of the applicants were dismissed being time-barred.
3. The facts giving rise to the present applications are that on 2-9-1979 the respondents in both the appeals filed separate suits for pre-emption in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khairpur. The suits were transferred from one Court to another. Lastly the suits were pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Pir Jo Goth for recording the evidence of plaintiffs in both the suits. The said Court became vacant. The parties and their Advocates were appearing before the said Court. The suits were being adjourned. Lastly the suits were fixed on 29-9-1997 when the parties in both the suits were present. The cases were adjourned to 13-11-1997 as the Court was lying vacant. In the meantime the learned District Judge transferred both the suits from the Court of Civil Judge, Pir Jo Goth to the Court of Civil Judge Kotdiji. The R&Ps of both the suits were received by the Civil Judge, Kotdiji on 11- 7-1997. The matters were adjourned to 13-11-1997 as the same were already fixed on that date but nobody appeared before the said Court. The Court ordered for the issuance of Court motion notices to the parties' Advocates of both the suits. The, suits were being adjourned from time to time for want of service of Court motion notices. On 6-12-1997, the A Court motion notices returned served upon the parties' .Advocates of both the suits as they refused to accept the same. The Court after perusing the report of bailiff held service good and the suits were fixed for evidence. The evidence of plaintiff/respondent in both the suits were recorded. On 23-12-1997 the suits were fixed for evidence of defendants/applicants of both the suits but they did not appear before the Court.
4. The suits were adjourned to 24-12-1997. On that date the Court after hearing the plaintiff's Advocate of both the suits and perusing the record decreed both the suits. On 20-4-1998 the applicants of both the revisions preferred appeals before the District Court and applications under section 5 of Limitation Act were filed in both the appeals in which the applicants took the plea that the suits were decreed on 24-12-1997 without their knowledge. They came to know about the ex pate decree on 6-4-1998. They applied for copies which were supplied to them on 17-4-1998 and then on 20-4-1998 they filed the appeals. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties' advocates dismissed both the appeals being time-barred under the impugned judgments.
5. ' I have heard the parties' Advocates of both the revisions and perused the record of cases very carefully. The applicants' Advocate has stated that the applicants had no knowledge about the suits as no Court motion notices were served upon them by the Court of Civil Judge, Kotdiji and when they came to know about the ex parte decree, they applied for the copies of decree and then they filed the appeals. He has further stated that the delay may be condoned.
6. ' On the other hand the respondents Advocate has stated that the Court motion notices were served upon the applicants' Advocates whose powers were in tact but they refused to accept the notices, therefore, the trial Court held the service good; that the said service was in accordance with law; that it was between the applicants and their Advocates; that the Advocate is agent of the applicants therefore, his actions are equally binding upon the applicants. He has further stated that valuable rights have accrued in favour of respondents which cannot be curtailed on flimsy grounds taken by the applicants.
7. I have given due consideration to the arguments and find that it is an admitted position that on 29-9-1997 the parties of the suits were present before the Court of Civil Judge, Pir Jo Goth when the suits were adjourned to 13-11-1997. In the meantime, the suits were transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Kotdiji. The said Court fixed the suits on 13-11-1997 as already fixed by the Court of Civil Judge Pir Jo Goth but nobody appeared before the Court. It was ordered by the Civil Judge, Kotdiji that Court motion notices be served upon the parties' Advocates which were duly served upon the Advocates for the applicants and respondents but they refused to accept the notices hence the trial Court held the service good. Under Order III, rule 5, C.P.C. The service of process on pleader is service upon the party. The said rule reads as under:--
5. Service of process on pleader.-Any process served on the pleader of any party or left at the office or ordinary residence of such pleader, and whether the same is for the personal appearance of the party or not, shall be presumed to be duly communicated and made known to the party whom the pleader represents, and, unless the Court otherwise directs, shall be as effectual for all purposes as if the same had been given to or served on the party in person."
8. Thus, the service effected upon the Advocates for the applicants was effectual for all purposes as if the same had been given to or served upon the party in person. Furthermore section 24-A(2), C.P.C.
9. Deals with the transfer of suit from one Court to another otherwise than on the application of any party. The said subsection reads as under:- "Section 24-A. Appearance of parties on transfer of suit, etc.--- (2) Where any suit, appeal or other proceeding is transferred from One Court to another, otherwise than on the application of a party, the parties thereto shall appear before the Court from which the suit, appeal or other proceedings is to be transferred, on the day already fixed for their appearance before that Court, and such Court shall then communicate the order of transfer to such parties and direct them to appear before the Court to which the suit, appeal or other proceeding is to be transferred, either on the same day, or on such earliest day as may be reasonable having regard to the distance at which the other Court is located."
10. A perusal of above section reveals that if the suit is transferred from one Court to another otherwise than on the application of party, the parties are required to appear before the Court where the suit was pending on the date already fixed for their appearance and then the said Court is required to inform the parties about the transfer of the suit and direct them to appear before the transferee Court either on the same date or some other date.
11. ' In the present case on 29-9-1997 the suits were pending before the Civil Judge, Pir Jo Goth when the parties were present. The suit was adjourned to 13-11-1997 in their presence and the said date was in their knowledge. It appears that the parties did not appear before the said Court on 13-11- 1997. Had they been appeared before the said Court, they would have been informed about the transfer of the suits as required under section 24-A(2), C.P.C. Non-appearance of the parties and their Advocates before the Court of Civil Judge, Pir Jo Goth clearly show their gross negligence on their part which cannot be condoned without assigning cogent, plausible and sufficient cause.
12. However, the transferee Court ordered for the issuance of the Court motion notices upon the parties' Advocates which were served as per bailiff's report, upon the Advocates for the applicants but nobody cared to appear before the transferee Court. As such the applicants had knowledge about the transfer of the suits; therefore, they cannot claim that they had no knowledge about the transfer of the suits. They got the said knowledge in pursuance of service of notices upon their Advocates in terms of Order III, rule 5, C.P.C. The notices were deemed to have been served upon the applicants for all effectual purposes.
13. ' Admittedly, the appeals were time-barred. The Appellate Court had considered all the aspects of the case minutely. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, the same do not require any interference. The revision applications have no merits; therefore, the same are dismissed along with the listed applications.