Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 2054 2000 SLD 2054 2000 CLC 1682
Sindh High Court
Suit No.218 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2751 of 1999, decision dated: 23rd August, 1999
MUSHTAQ AHMED MEMON, J
Muhammad Zubair Qureshi for Plaintiff. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Defendants Nos.2 and 3

Messrs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. --Plaintiff

VS

Messrs TARBELLA COTTON AND SPINNING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and 4 others----Defendants

Law:

Section:

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3---Suit for recovery of loan---Application for leave to defend suit---Defendants who had filed application for leave to defend suit beyond statutory period of twenty­one days, had sought condonation of said delay---Validity---Time for filing application for leave to defend suit could be extended only if Court was satisfied that defendants did not have knowledge of publication of summons pertaining to suit---Defendants had not even made a bare statement that publication of said summons in newspaper was not within their knowledge--­Defendants having failed to file application for leave to defend suit within time despite having knowledge of summon, no ground existed for extension of time for filing application for leave to defend suit. ORDER This application is filed on behalf of defendants Nos.2 and 3 seeking extension of time by one day. The application is supported by the affidavit of one Muhammad Saeed, Deputy General Manager (F&A) of defendant No.2. It is averred in the affidavit that the summons pertaining to the present suit was served in the office of defendant No.2 through Bailiff on 8-3-1999 whereas summons were published in daily Nawa-e-Waqt, dated 6th March, 1999. The application for leave to defend. C.M.A. No.2637 of 1999, purportedly filed on behalf of defendants Nos.2 and 3, is stated to have been signed on 26th March, 1999 on which date affidavit in support thereof was also sworn by the very Deputy General Manager of defendant No.2. It is further stated in the affidavit that the application for leave alongwith the affidavit were left: by the Advocate on the desk of Branch Superintendent of this Court on 26-3-1999. According to the affidavit, it was subsequently learnt that the office had raised objection to the effect that the application for leave to defend had been presented on 27-3-1999 and was, therefore, beyond the statutory period of 21 days computed from 5-3-1999 on which date summons were published in another newspaper. It is further averred in the affidavit that the affidavit was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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