2007 PLP 304 (CLD)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

For the order we propose to pass in this case, pleaded facts need not be stated in detail. Suffice it to stay that on 30-7-2006, the respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.76633.77 against the appellant. The case was put up before the learned Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore, on 4-7-2006 who directed that summons accompanying by copy of the plaint be issued and be served upon the appellants through bailiff of the Court, registered post A.D., courier service and by publication in Urdu and English dailies. The case was fixed for 17-8-2006. On this date the case was taken up in presence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent as well as learned counsel for the defendant-appellant. It was observed that the publication has been made in Urdu Newspaper on 7-7-2006 and in English Newspaper on 14-7-2006 and the summons have also been served upon the appellants through their son and brother, they have not filed any application for leave to defend the suit. Thereafter he proceeded to decree the suit as prayed for.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that as per report of the bailiff they were served on 16-8-2006 and put in appearance on 17-8-2006 and whereas they had 30 days time to file application from the date of service. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has not much to say in reply.

3. We have gone through the records of the learned trial Court. We do find that as per report of the bailiff on the summons these were handed over to son and brother of the said appellants on 16-8-2006. We also find that the Courier Service had sent hack envelopes un-served which are present on the file with a report that the Flat is locked.

4. We have already noted above that the case was taken up on 17-8-2006 and the appellants did put in appearance before learned Judge Banking Court. Now the said notice conveyed in terms of section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 that they are to make an application for leave to defend the suit within 30 days. This means .that they had about 28 days to do the needful when the learned judge Banking Court proceeded to decree the suit. The impugned decree, therefore, cannot be sustained. The R.F.A. accordingly is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 17-8-2006 is set aside. Result would be that the suit filed by the respondent-Bank against the appellants shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore. The appellant shall now file an application for leave to defend the suit in the said Court within 10 days from today. No orders as to costs. Records be remitted back immediately by the office. H.B.T./M-708/L Case remanded.