Law: Code of Civil Procedure of 1882

Section: 12(2)

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

Section: 9

Summary: The appellant challenged the dismissal of his Leave to Defend application in Banking Suit No.36 of 2024 filed by Bank Islami Pakistan, claiming he was not properly served due to an alleged incorrect address. The appellant relied on his Tenancy Agreement and argued he was ill and unaware of proceedings. The Bank rebutted, showing the appellant had used the same address in earlier documents and failed to notify the Bank of any changes. The Court found the Finance Facility Agreement contained a minor, curable typographical error and that the appellant defaulted on the loan. It held that the appellant’s defense based on the alleged incorrect address was groundless and dismissed the appeal. Sections/Rules Used: Section 12(2) CPC – Power to set aside decree for sufficient cause. Section 9, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 – Disclosure of suit breakup/financial details. 2 Two-Word Descriptions: Loan Default Address Dispute ORDER SHEET Has challenged the Order dated 22.05.2025, dismissing the Application of Appellant (Judgment Debtor/Defendant) in Banking Suit No.36 of 2024 (Re: Bank Islami Pakistan v. Abdul Rehman Khanzada). Learned Counsel for Appellant states that Leave to Defend Application was not filed, because the Appellant was not properly served at the given addresses and hence, was not given a fair opportunity to defend the Suit. Has referred to Plaint (Page-169, Annexure-B of the Appeal), that his addresses mentioned as (i) House No.4, 26th Street, Sector E, Manzoor Colony, Karachi and (ii) Muhallah Khanzada, Ward No.5, Sakrand, District Shaheed Benazirabad; whereas, the correct address of Appellant is House No.2, 26th Street, Sector E, Manzoor Colony, Karachi, as mentioned in the Tenancy Agreement (Page-71); referred to the Publication and Court Notice in which the same mistake has been repeated. Contends that in the Finance Facility Agreement itself the address is incorrect, as the house of Appellant is not situated in 6th Street, but in 26th Street (Page-217 of First Part). The other set of facts as per pleadings are that the Appellant fell ill and was suffering from multiple diseases relating to…