(From previous issue) :
9. Such substituted service cannot be regarded as idle formality. The law intends it as a substitute to actual personal service. Moreover it appears from the record that the ‘Dainik Ajker Chattagrami, in its issue dated 18-8-2007 and the ‘Dainik Samachar’ its issue dated 21-8-2007 published the notice regarding pendency of the aforesaid suit wherein the present petitioners were shown as defendants and it was stated that the instant suit is pending against them. It is relevant here to quote the special provision of serving notice upon the defendants in a Artha Rin Suit provided in Section 7(I) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain which runs as follows:
“?(?) ????? ? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???, ???? ??????? ??????? ????”? ??? ???????? ????????? ????????????? ??????? ???????? ???????, ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????, ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ??????, ??? ??? ?????? ?? (????) ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???, ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?? (????) ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ????? ????????, ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????, ??? ????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ??? ???, ???????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ???????, ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?????
10. Aforesaid provision of service of notice in the Ain has been provided so that the defendants get information as to the pendency of the suit. Where substituted service was done by publication in the newspaper, the presumption of the service cannot be rebutted by making simple statement.
11. Moreso, these defendants did not take any step for gelling the exparte decree set aside. The petitioners filed the instant application under Sections 57, 6(5) of the Ain and under the provision of Order I, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. None of those provisions authorizes the Adalat to modify decree. Section 6(5) of the A in and order I Rule 10 of the Code have got no relevancy in connection with a disposed of suit.
It is true that no Court can be regarded as powerless to recall an order in an under trial case pending before it if it is convinced that the order is wangled through fraud or misrepresentation but pre-condition is that such proceeding must be pending before it. The Court must have jurisdiction over the proceeding before it can exercise any inherent power. The Adalat was not justified in resorting its power under Section 57 of the Ain to reopen the decree after disposing of the suit. The instant Artha Rin Suit has been disposed of exparte against the defendant Nos. 2(a) to (d) and on contest against the rest. Inherent power of the Adalat in Section 57 of the Ain should be exercised subject to the Ain that if the Ain does not contain specific provision which would meet the necessities of the provision should be followed and inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked. The Ain provides express provision against ex-parte decree to get the same set aside but the petitioners, without resorting to such procedure, in fact, made an attempt to get the decree modified bringing application under 57 of the Ain which is not permissible.
12. Since a competent court of law passed the decree against the petitioners who did not appear in the said suit for contesting the same, we are of the view that it is difficult for this Division to disturb the conclusion arrived at by the High Court Division.
13. Accordingly, we do not find any wrong in the judgment and order of the High Court division, which calls for any interference by this Division.
Thus, the petition is dismissed.
9. Such substituted service cannot be regarded as idle formality. The law intends it as a substitute to actual personal service. Moreover it appears from the record that the ‘Dainik Ajker Chattagrami, in its issue dated 18-8-2007 and the ‘Dainik Samachar’ its issue dated 21-8-2007 published the notice regarding pendency of the aforesaid suit wherein the present petitioners were shown as defendants and it was stated that the instant suit is pending against them. It is relevant here to quote the special provision of serving notice upon the defendants in a Artha Rin Suit provided in Section 7(I) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain which runs as follows:
“?(?) ????? ? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???, ???? ??????? ??????? ????”? ??? ???????? ????????? ????????????? ??????? ???????? ???????, ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????, ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ??????, ??? ??? ?????? ?? (????) ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???, ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ???, ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?? (????) ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ????? ????????, ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????, ??? ????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ??? ???, ???????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ???????, ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?????
10. Aforesaid provision of service of notice in the Ain has been provided so that the defendants get information as to the pendency of the suit. Where substituted service was done by publication in the newspaper, the presumption of the service cannot be rebutted by making simple statement.
11. Moreso, these defendants did not take any step for gelling the exparte decree set aside. The petitioners filed the instant application under Sections 57, 6(5) of the Ain and under the provision of Order I, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. None of those provisions authorizes the Adalat to modify decree. Section 6(5) of the A in and order I Rule 10 of the Code have got no relevancy in connection with a disposed of suit.
It is true that no Court can be regarded as powerless to recall an order in an under trial case pending before it if it is convinced that the order is wangled through fraud or misrepresentation but pre-condition is that such proceeding must be pending before it. The Court must have jurisdiction over the proceeding before it can exercise any inherent power. The Adalat was not justified in resorting its power under Section 57 of the Ain to reopen the decree after disposing of the suit. The instant Artha Rin Suit has been disposed of exparte against the defendant Nos. 2(a) to (d) and on contest against the rest. Inherent power of the Adalat in Section 57 of the Ain should be exercised subject to the Ain that if the Ain does not contain specific provision which would meet the necessities of the provision should be followed and inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked. The Ain provides express provision against ex-parte decree to get the same set aside but the petitioners, without resorting to such procedure, in fact, made an attempt to get the decree modified bringing application under 57 of the Ain which is not permissible.
12. Since a competent court of law passed the decree against the petitioners who did not appear in the said suit for contesting the same, we are of the view that it is difficult for this Division to disturb the conclusion arrived at by the High Court Division.
13. Accordingly, we do not find any wrong in the judgment and order of the High Court division, which calls for any interference by this Division.
Thus, the petition is dismissed.
