Law: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980

Section: 5

  Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980-- ---- R. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXVII, R.3 & O.V, R.20-- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 --- Suit in summary jurisdiction --- Service on defendant ---Essentials --- Service on defendant merely by publication --- Validity -- Defendant was neither served through summons nor by postal service -- Defendant on gaining knowledge of suit having been filed against him, applied for leave to appear and defend suit alongwith application for condonation of delay which was rejected and suit against defendant was decreed ex parte-- Validity --- Object of R.8, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules was no more than to duly and effectively forestall evasiveness and avoidance on part of defendants from being served with Court process --- Due service still remains sine qua non of the exercise --- Where, however, genuine efforts at effecting personal service stood abortive, essentially for which defendant could be blamed, presumptive service by publication alone could be invoked to fit into stipulation of R.8, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980 --- Issuance of process in all the three modes was yet mandatory --- Genuine attempts must be made to serve defendant in ordinary course and under postal cover ---Service in any of the three modes postulated by R.8, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, would be deemed sufficient only when genuine attempt to serve defendant was made and not otherwise --- Genuine effort to serve defendant having not been made and on account of that delay in approaching Court having occurred, condonation of delay was justified and, thus, dismissal of application under S.5, Limitation Act, 1908 was erroneous --- Banking Tribunal's order whereby defendant's application for condonation of delay to appear and defend suit was rejected could not be maintained and to that extent Tribunal's order was not valid. United Bank Ltd. v. Mohibali Tannery Ltd. PLD 1994 Kar. 275; Emirate Bank International v. Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills 1993 MLD 54 and Ahmed Autos v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1990 SC 497 ref. Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans)…