2017 PLP 1247 (CLD)
ABDUL SATTAR — Appellant Versus The BANK OF PUNJAB through Branch Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1247 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR — Appellant Versus The BANK OF PUNJAB through Branch Manager — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1247 (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 2017 PLP 1247 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1247 (CLD) (ABDUL SATTAR — Appellant Versus The BANK OF PUNJAB through Branch Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Iqbal for Respondent-Bank.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 12 & 22
Ex parte decree, setting aside of
Ex parte decree was passed against appellant and others
Banking Court declined to set aside the same
Service by either of three modes was considered as good service sufficient to draw an inference that a person was served in due course of law
Publication which was one of the modes of service was also considered as a valid service and it was not necessary to prove service through all three modes simultaneously and any one of them should be sufficient in such regard
Banking Court rightly found that affidavit of Bank manager from whom appellant/judgment debtor obtained knowledge regarding pendency of suit was not filed nor relied upon by him
Other judgment debtors were also served through bailiff and they received summons but did not appear before the Banking Court
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against the order dated 9.3.2011 passed by the Banking Court-I, Multan. By the impugned order, the Banking Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 21.4.2010.
2. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has chosen to challenge the order dated 9.3.2012 by which the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed. However, the appellant has omitted to lay a challenge to the judgment and decree which was passed against the appellant which has attained finality against the appellant. This is contradiction in terms and even if the instant appeal is allowed; that will not have the effect of setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court by a separate judgment.
3. However, having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any infirmity to have crept in the impugned order passed by the Banking Court. The service on the appellant was validly effected and the appellant was served through bailiff and upon his refusal to receive the summons, he was served through a fixation at the door of his residence. This is sufficient and proper service and conform to the requirements of law. Further, in the banking dispensation, service by either of the three modes is considered as good service sufficient to draw an inference that a person has been served in due course of law. A publication which is one of the modes of service is also considered as a valid service and it is not necessary to prove service through all three modes simultaneously and any one of them should be sufficient in this regard. The Banking Court rightly held that the affidavit of the bank manager from whom the appellant obtained knowledge regarding pendency of the suit has not been filed nor relied upon by the appellant. Moreover, the other judgment debtors were also served through bailiff and they received the summons but did not choose to appear before the Banking Court.
4. In view of the above, the instant appeal is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed. MH/A-11/L Appeal dismissed.