2007L5007 (PLP)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

A suit for recovery of money was filed by the respondent-Bank against Umar Hayat, the father of the appellants, in a Banking Tribunal. A show-cause notice was issued and a reply was filed. Later the case was taken up by a learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Faisalabad, who decreed the suit on 24-5-2001. Against this judgment and decree, R.F.A. No.543 of 2001 was filed which was allowed with consent vide order, dated 23-9-2002 of a learned Division Bench of this Court. It was held that the reply to the show-cause notice will be treated as an application for leave to defend and the case will be decided within a period of two months even if the learned Judge, Banking Court, has to undertake day to day proceedings. After the remand, the learned Judge issued notices to the parties and their counsel. No one appeared for the appellants who were proceeded against ex parte on 25-6-2003. The suit was ultimately decreed ex parte on 10-11-2003. On 7-4-2004 the appellants filed an application for setting aside of the said ex parte decree. The respondent-Bank contested the application. Vide order, dated 15-6-2005 a learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Faisalabad, dismissed the same.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is nothing on record to show that the appellants were served in the manner prescribed by law. According to him, the reliance on the postal receipt by the learned Judge, Banking Court, is erroneous as, in fact, no notice was received by the appellants and their learned counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

3. We have gone through the copies of the records. It will be seen that the case was remanded by this Court on 23-9-2002 in presence of both the parties with a direction to the learned Judge, Banking Court, to decide it within two months. The ex parte proceedings were ordered on 25-6-2003 while ex parte decree was passed on 10-11-2003 whereas the application was filed on 7-4-2004. We called upon the learned counsel to explain as to whether in view of the said direction of this Court, an inquiry was made by the appellants from the Banking Court to whom the case was remanded with a direction to decide it within two months. The answer is in the negative. Now we do find that notices were issued to the appellants as well as their learned counsel, namely, Mian Altaf Hussain, Advocate, under registered cover A.D. as also through courier service and through Process Server. Certified copies of the receipts are available on record and these do go to show Mian Altaf Hussain, Advocate, received the notice sent to him through courier service. The statutory presumption is attached to the postal receipts that a notice under registered cover has reached its destination. The Process Server reported that the house of the appellants was locked and the notice was affixed on the outer door of the house. We also find that it has been stated by the appellants in the application that they were informed by the Lambardar of their village about the factum of the passing of the ex parte decree. It is rather strange that the Lambardar came to know about the decree and not the appellants. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Faisalabad) The F.A.O. is accordingly dismissed but without any orders ass to costs. M.H./U-10/L Appeal dismissed.