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

Section: 10,9(5),7

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 10, 9(5) 7---Suit for recovery---Procedure of Banking Court---Application for leave to defend---Filing of application for leave to defend within period of statutory limitation---Effective service in terms of S. 9(5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Scope---Application for leave to defend was dismissed on account of being barred by time---Contention of defendant, inter alia, was that impugned order did not take into account fact that said application was filed within 30 days from date of knowledge of defendant with regard to proceedings before Banking Court---Validity had not mentioned such date of knowledge of proceedings in application for leave to defend and therefore same could only be regarded as an afterthought to remove legal lucana and even otherwise, defendant did not mention mode/source of such knowledge about pending proceedings, and did not make any allegation with regard to postal address on which effective service was made--- No illegality therefore existed in impugned order---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. ORDER Concise facts of this appeal are that the respondent No. 1 filed suit for recovery of Rs.471982/- on 10.10.2009. The appellant filed an application for Leave to appear and defend the suit which was duly contested by the plaintiff/respondent. After hearing the arguments, appellants application was dismissed by the learned Banking Judge vide order dated 19.02.2015. Feeling aggrieved of order dated 19.02.2016 of learned Banking Court, the appellant has preferred instant appeal and challenged the validity of the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the application for leave to appear and defend the suit was filed within time because the appellant/defendant got the knowledge of the pendency of suit on 03.02.2010 while the learned Banking Court has misread and misconstrued the record while passing the impugned order. Therefore the same is not sustainable at law and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff fully supports the impugned order. We have heard the…

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