Law: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance, 1979

Section: 7

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIV of 1979)... ---- S. 7 --- Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, R.8 --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3 --- Suit for recovery of loan--Leave to appeal and defend suit --- Service on defendant was duly effected by one or more modes of service provided for in Rule 8 which was good service-- Defendant who filed application for leave to appear and defend suit after considerable delay, was required to give explanation for each day's delay, which he had failed to do ---Application which was filed after a long delay was dismissed in absence of any Plausible explanation for such delay and suit filed by plaintiff was decreed accordingly. P L D 1990 SC 497 ref. Noorullah A. Manjee for Plaintiff. G.H. Malik and Sardar A. Majeed for Defendant. Date of hearing: 29th May, 1990. JUDGMENT This is a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loan) Ordinance, 1979, for Rs.76,85,809.43 with interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum with quartetly rest from.16-7-1986 till payment. Summons was issued to the defendant in modes prescribed under Rule 8 of the Banking Recovery of Loan Rules, 1980, framed under the Ordinance. On 14-11-1986, publication of summons took place in the daily Morning News, Karachi, but the defendant could not be served by other modes. On 11-8-1987 the Additional Registrar held service by publication on the defendant good. It was also ordered that since the defendant had also refused to accept the summons summons may be pasted on his last known address, which took place subsequently.   On 12-10-1987 the defendant filed C M A No.4444/87 being an application under Order 37, rule 3, C.P.C. for leave to appear and defend the suit Another application bearing C.M.A. No.4379/88 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing CMA No.4444/87 was filed by the defendant on 15-8-1988. On the face of it, the plaintiff's application for leave to defend is time barred, I will, therefore, first take up C.MA.-4379/88 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and if it is allowed by me, the former will be considered on merits. In the affidavit…