Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Section: 9,12,22

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9, 12 & 22---Appeal---Ex parte decree, setting aside of---Ex parte decree was passed against appellant and others---Banking Court declined to set aside the same---Validity---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/ debtor obtained knowledge regarding pendency of suit was not filed nor relied upon by him---Other debtors were also served through bailiff and they received summons but did not appear before the Banking Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. JUDGMENT 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 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 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…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492