2004 PLP 1569 (CLD)
RAJANA COTTON FACTORY (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive and 6 others ‑‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1569 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | RAJANA COTTON FACTORY (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive and 6 others ‑‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager‑‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1569 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1569 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1569 (CLD) (RAJANA COTTON FACTORY (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive and 6 others ‑‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zaheer‑ud‑Din Baber for Appellant.
- Khalid Pervaiz Khawaja for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑Ss. 9(5), 10(2) & 12‑‑‑Nature of service‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑Service by publication of notice in newspapers on 1‑3‑2002 and by way of summons through registered post on 13‑3‑2002‑‑‑Banking Court allowed suit as no leave to defend application was filed within requisite time‑‑‑Application under S.12 by the appellants contending that they were not properly served, was rejected by Banking Court holding that service of the defendant in a suit under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, in any of the forms was proper and adequate service‑‑‑Plea that summonses were issued on 13‑3‑2002 and the requisite period of 30 days had not yet expired, when the decree was passed on 3‑4‑2002 was of no avail, as the publication in the newspapers had taken effect on 1‑3‑2002, thus the period for filing the application for leave to defend commenced from that date‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.‑‑The respondent‑Bank, brought a suit for recovery amounting to Rs.10,798,396.50 against the present appellants. Summons through registered post and courier service etc., were issued to the appellants on 13‑3‑2002 and the publication of notice in the Daily Newspapers was effected on 1‑3‑2002. As the appellants did not file the leave application within the requisite time, resultantly, the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 3‑4‑2002, allowed the suit. Thereafter, the appellants moved an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for setting aside the decree, mainly on the ground that they have not been served, rather had attained the knowledge of the ex parte decree from the officials of the Bank on 11‑4‑2002 and immediately moved the application. This application has been rejected by learned Banking Court finding that, the appellants were duly served; they did not file the leave application within the requisite time, resultantly, no cause for setting aside the decree has been made out. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends, that summons in the form of registered post, courier service etc., were issued to the appellants on 13‑3‑2002 and thus, the requisite period of 30 days had not yet expired, when the decree was passed on 3‑4‑2002.
3. However, when confronted that the publication of notice had also been effected in the two Daily Newspapers on 1‑3‑2002 and 30 days had passed by 3‑4‑2002, he states that such publication did not come to the knowledge of the appellants and thus, the application could not be moved from that date i.e. 1‑3‑2002.
4. We are afraid, the above contentions have no force for the reason that, service of the defendant in a suit, under the Ordinance, in any of the form, is a proper and adequate service and because the publication in the newspapers had taken effect on 1‑3‑2002, thus, the period for filing the leave application, commenced from that date, which was not filed within the time provided. Therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the learned Banking Court, calling for interference in appeal. Dismissed. M.A.W./R‑255/L Appeal dismissed.