1. ' The brief facts out of which this review application arises are that the respondents in the review application filed Constitutional Petition No,3998 of 1998 against the review applicants/respondents in the writ petition with the following prayer:- "Under the circumstances, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that recovery of interest in case of the petitioner's father's account No,100648 and proceedings of attachment of crops initiated by the respondents be declared as illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect which may kindly be declared as such in the light of judgment of the Federal Shariat Court cited as PLD 1992 FSC pages 1 and 445 read with Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991."
2. The aforesaid Constitutional petition was fixed before this Court on 15-5-1998. Respondent No,2 in the Constitutional petition was directed to appear before this Court alongwith the relevant record on 25-5-1998. Respondent No,2 failed to appear before this Court on 25-5-1998. Office was directed to issue fresh notice to respondent No,2 in terms of order dated 15-5-1998 for 11-6-1998.
2. Respondents were restrained to take coercive measures against the petitioners in the Constitutional petition vide order dated 25-5-1998. Constitutional petition was fixed before this Court on 20-4-1999 and the following order was passed:-- "The comments have also not been filed by the respondents. It means that they have nothing to say. The writ petition is accordingly allowed."
3. ' The petitioners being aggrieved filed present review application before this Court on 6-5-2002.
3. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that petitioners received the order of this Court dated 20-4-1999 on 29-4-2002. On 30th April, 2002 was holiday on account of Referendum held in the country and 1-5-2002 was also holiday on account of Labour Day. Petitioners filed application for securing certified copy of order dated 20-4-1999 before the Copying Agency on 2-5-2002. Copy was received by the petitioners on 4-5-2002. 5th May, 2002 was Sunday. The petitioners have filed this review petition before this Court on 6-5-2002. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not receive any notice and intimation from this Court and the petitioners have filed application for review of the order within time from the date of knowledge.
4. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that learned counsel of the petitioners failed to bring the case within the parameters prescribed under Order 47, rule 1 read with section 114, C.P.C.
4. He further submits that learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any patent error on the face of record in the impugned order. Therefore, review application is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:- ' Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741.
5. ' Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State 1979 SCMR 43.
6. ' Lt.-Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Ameer Khan v. The Controller of State Duty, Government of Pakistan PLD 1962 SC 335.
7. ' Syed Muhammad Zaki v. Maqsood Ali Khan PLD 1976 SC 308.
8. ' Muhammad Chottay Khan v. Muhammad Munir Khan 1990 CLC 1057.
9. ' Muhammad Hussain v. Farzand Ali PLD 1976 Lahore 1173.
10. ' Jalal Din and another v. Major Muhammad Akram Khan PLD. 1963 Lahore 596.
11. ' Messrs A.R. Bhuiyan & Co. Ltd. v. Messrs Centrotex Foreign Trading Corporation PLD 1968 Dacca 779.
12. ' Mian Muhammad Atta Ullah v. D.C., Layallpur and others PLD 1967 Lahore 1072.
13. ' Muhammad Rafique v. Qamar Ali and 8 others 2003 MLD 52.
14. ' Mst. Parveen Begum v. Habib Gul and another 1997 MLD 2473.
15. ' Fazal Din and others v. Barkat Bibi PLD 1978 Lahore 1016.
16. ' Mst. Shamero v. Sardaraz Khan and others PLD 2001 Peshawar 54.
17. ' Municipal Committee, Pattoki v. Muhammad AnwAr 1982 CLC 910.
18. ' He further submits that impugned order was passed by this Court on 20-4-1999 and petitioners have filed review application after three years and one month. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed as time-barred. He further submits that the petitioners had made concocted story qua the knowledge of the impugned order dated 20-4-1999 that the petitioners received copy of the impugned order on 29-4-2002, He further submits that notices were sent by this Court to the respondents/petitioners (No,19973, dated 21-5-1998 and No,24720, dated 2-6-1998.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties.
19. It is pertinent to mention here that service of respondents/present petitioners did not effect as is evident from the file of the case notices were sent to the respondents/ petitioners which were not returned to the office as the notice mentioned by the learned counsel of the respondents did not have any endorsement qua the service of the petitioners/respondents. It is also settled principle of law that principles of C.P.C. Are applicable in Constitutional proceedings as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1970 SC 1. It is admitted fact that the petitioners/ respondents having not been duly served, therefore, review application filed by the petitioners is within time from the date of knowledge. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' Rehman v. Hussain Bakhsh 1987 CLC 1257.
20. ' Muhammad Bakhsh v. Rab Nawaz NLR 1994 Appeal Cases 456.
21. ' Mst. Sardaran Begum v. Muhammad Fazal 1993 CLC 2303.
22. ' Dil Muhammad v. Additional Distia Judge 1991 MLD 2068.
23. ' Hashim v. Syed Akhtar Ali Shah 1993 MLD 889.
24. ' Sibat Ullah Khan v. Pirzada Noor Ullah PLD 1993 Peshawar 90.
25. ' The service of the petitioners/ respondents was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by Syed Mazhar Ali Shah v. Shah Muhammad 1990 MLD 1070.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the service of the petitioners/respondents was/ not effected. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20-4-1999 is hit by the principle of natural justice as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Crescent Sugar Mills v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1982 Lahore 1.
6. ' In view of what has been stated above, this review application is accepted and the impugned order dated 20-4-1999 is set aside. Office is directed to fix main Constitutional petition before appropriate Bench after notice to the parties in the writ petition.
26. ' Review .