ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that no ex parte judgment can be passed against a party without proper service of notice in accordance with law and an effective opportunity of hearing.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan set aside the Lahore High Court’s judgment and the trial court’s ex parte proceedings in a case concerning the specific performance of a property sale agreement, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
In its detailed written judgment, the court observed that substituted service of notice could only be ordered after genuine efforts to serve the party through ordinary means had been made and the court was satisfied that ordinary service was not possible or the party was deliberately avoiding service.
The court noted that, during the earlier proceedings, the counsel had declined to appear due to lack of instructions from his clients. This could not be treated as valid service of notice, particularly when the judicial record contained no evidence that the parties had been served in accordance with law.
It held that failure to comply with the legal requirements for service of notice was not a mere technical irregularity but a matter concerning the fundamental right to a fair hearing. Every party must have an effective opportunity to present its case, produce evidence and defend its position.
According to the case record, Ghulam Mujtaba and Ghulam Murtaza entered into a property sale agreement on November 30, 2004, for a total consideration of Rs7.3125 million. The buyer filed a suit for specific performance, claiming to have paid Rs2.5 million, but alleging that the seller had failed to execute the sale deed.
After the case was remanded for rehearing, the trial court passed an ex parte judgment on November 2, 2016, in the absence of the defendants. The Lahore High Court’s Multan Bench dismissed the relevant petition on February 20, 2023, prompting the challenge before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, the ex parte decision and the related orders, directing the trial court to decide the case afresh after ensuring proper service of notice and providing all parties an opportunity to submit written statements, produce evidence and present arguments.
The trial court was asked to make every effort to decide the matter within four months of the parties’ first appearance. The parties were directed to appear before the relevant district judge on October 26, 2026.
The court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute and that the trial court would decide the matter independently in light of the evidence and submissions of the parties.