2005 PLP 1688 (CLD)
MAZHAR IQBAL and another — Appellants Versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LTD. (ZTBL) — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1688 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAZHAR IQBAL and another — Appellants Versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LTD. (ZTBL) — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1688 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1688 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1688 (CLD) (MAZHAR IQBAL and another — Appellants Versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LTD. (ZTBL) — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahoor Anwar Malik for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 10 & 22
Application for leave to defend suit was submitted 33 days after service on defendants through notice in the newspapers
Application for leave to defend suit was dismissed being barred by time because period of 30 days was available to defendants
Application seeking condonation of delay was not filed by defendants
Process server had reported that defendants being not available, service was effected through fixation and it was not believable that registered notice had taken 20 days to reach the defendants
In absence of any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree, same would not warrant interference in appeal.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-60-2004 whereby the suit filed by the respondent-Bank was decreed in the amount of Rs.4,67,
422. The appellant was served through notice in dailies "Dawn" and "Front" on 5-5-2004 while application for leave to defend was submitted on 7-6-2004. The said application was dismissed as barred by time because the period of 30 days was available to seek leave to defend from the date of service i.e. 5-5-2004 but it was filed on 33rd day. An application seeking condonation of delay was not either filed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that notice was, in fact, received by the appellants on 20-5-2004 and from the said date the application for leave to defend filed by the appellant was within the prescribed period of 30 days. Irrespective of this contention according to section 10(2), C.P.C. the period of 30 days is to be counted from the date of first service by anyone of the modes which includes notice in the newspaper.
3. The contention that the notice was received by the appellants on 20-5-2004 it is not supported by the record. According to the report dated 6-5-2004 of the process server on the summons, the appellants were not available and, therefore, service was effected through affixation. Acknowledgement receipts (undated) are on the record. Perusal thereof shows the signatures of both the appellants thereon. The date of dispatch of the registered notices was 30-4-2004. We are not inclined to believe that it has taken 20-days to reach the appellants. We do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree to warrant interference. This appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./M-818/L Appeal dismissed.