1993 PLP 1322 (CLC)

Syed Sardar Shah Bokhari for Appellant. Muhammad Hanif Sheikh for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1993. Sh. Abdul Waheed. the learned District Judge, Multan (as he then was), by an order announced on 18‑9‑1984, decreed a. suit for recovery filed by Habib Bank Ltd. against Rasheed Asghar Khokhar, under Order 37, rule 2, C.P.C.. The judgment‑debtor has come up in appeal to this Court.

2. He maintains that he had not duly been served and he was not disentitled to make an application under rule 3 for leave to defend, but the learned District Judge did not allow him to do so, without any legal justification.

3. I am afraid, the appellant is absolutely incorrect there. Without any fear of contradiction, it has to be observed that his attitude was contumaciously evasive and he persistently avoided service. Proces‑server who was entrusted with the summons was not unkind to him; rather he favoured him by reporting twice that he was away to Murree and then to Swat. On one occasion the process‑server was told that the defendant was not living at the stated address, Then the same address was found to be correct, for when the process‑server again visited the place, the family members furnished the information that Rasheed Asghar was not inside but had gone to Murree. A process was also issued by registered post A.D. The defendant however refused to receive it. When, at long last, the process‑server succeeded in locating Rasheed Asghar, he did not acknowledge service but raised certain objections, which were frivolous. If copy of the plaint did not carry signatures of the plaintiff or the counsel, or it was deficient in certain respects, proper course for the defendant was to have come to the Court and applied for permission to contest the case, by raising the same and other available objections. Process‑server was not a judicial officer and could not make any determination in regard to validity or force of what was being maintained by the defendant, nor could he become an emissary and take upon himself the task to approach the bank people and obtain from them certain clarifications as were sought by defendant. He was obviously adamant in avoidance of his liability and in evasion of his service; and if he did not care to come. to the Court and contest the case, none else could be blamed and he himself was wholly at fault. The learned District Judge had, in the circumstances, no option but to decree the suit, especially when the plaintiff‑Bank's claim had a sound basis in the shape of a demand promissory note and a receipt, having duly been executed by the defendant, while obtaining the loan amount from the bank. When the defendant declined to liquidate his liability, the bank was constrained to sue him for recovery of the amount due. He could possibly have no defence. If at all one was available, he should have come forward to urge the same by applying to the Court in time, after the process‑server had met him and he had become aware of pendency of the suit against him.

4. There is no force whatever in appeal and the same is dismissed with costs. The defendant‑appellant would be liable to pay interest at the agreed rate till he makes payment of the full amount in dispute. AA./R‑79/L Appeal dismissed.