1989 PLP 932 (CLC)

ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.‑‑By this appeal the present appellants have challenged the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 10‑12‑1987 rejecting the two applications of the appellants. The facts are that the respondent Union Bank of the Middle East Limited filed the suit against the appellants under Summary Chapter read with the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 for amount in suit. The admitted facts are that the summons were served upon the appellants on 5‑5‑1987 who filed the Vakalatnama of their counsel on 1 2‑5‑1987. The applications for leave to defend the suit were filed on 31‑5‑1987 alongwith application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. It is also admitted that after the service of summons on 5‑5‑1987 the appellant No.l sent a telex to its branch, the appellant No.2 at Hong Kong on 11‑5‑1987 while a copy of the plaint was sent on 12‑5‑1987. Again on 13‑5‑1987 the appellant No.l sent a telex message requesting its branch at Hong Kong to send parawise comments and then subsequently on 18‑5‑1987 sent a reminder. The branch office sent on 22‑5‑1987 the documents through DHL Courier which were received by the appellant No.l on 24‑5‑1987 and thereafter the application was move on 31‑5‑1987 i.e. 26 days after the service of summons. Alongwith the applications supporting affidavits were filed. The learned Single Judge after having considered the same rejected the two applications. It is well‑settled law that in case where a party seeks a condonation of delay he has to explain the delay of each day. In the instant case no explanation has been advanced as to why after having received the summons on 5‑5‑1987, the appellant No.l sent a telex to A its Hong Kong Branch on 13‑5‑1987 asking for parawise comments although the first telex was sent on 11‑5‑1987 and the copy of the plaint was sent on 12‑5‑1987. This delay of 8 days has not been explained in the affidavits. The appellant No.l should have realised that the suit was under Summary Chapter and they should have acted vigilantly with promptness. They have also not explained as to why the appellant No.2 took 11 days i.e. from 11‑5‑1987 to 22‑5‑1987 to send the documents to the appellant No.l. This is a case of culpable negligence on the part of the appellants which cannot be condoned. Again, as admitted the documents were received by the appellant No.l from their Hong Kong branch on 24‑5‑1987, yet they took 7 days to file the applications for leave to defend, although the same could have been done on the very next day i.e. 25‑5‑1987. The order of the lower Court shows that there were Eid holidays from 27th to 29th and the Court was closed. Even if these three days are excluded then also the appellants have not explained as to why the applications could not be moved on 25th or 26th May, 1987 or on 30th; May, 1987. Mr. Bilal A. Khawaja appearing on behalf of the appellants, explaining the delay from 25‑5‑1987 to 30‑5‑1987, has argued that the time of 3 days from 24‑5‑1987 excluding the Eid holidays was quite reasonable time for drafting and presenting the application for leave to defend. We cannot subscribe to this contention of the learned counsel. Such an application could have been drafted and presented within one day. Mr. Bilal A . Khawaja has also not explained the delay in sending the documents by their Hong Kong branch which too was required to be explained. For the above reasons we find no substance in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. M.Z.S./N‑141/K Appeal dismissed.