1. ' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the appellant secured loan from tie respondent-Bank amounting to Rs.29,000 vide Loan Case No,098959 which was sanctioned by the respondent-Bank on the application of the appellant on 5-8-1991 whereas loan secured by the appellant amounting to Rs.2,08,030 vide Loan Case No,091378 which was allegedly sanctioned by the respondent-Bank in favour of the appellant on 26-11-1990. The respondent-Bank sanctioned aforesaid loans in favour of the appellant after mortgaging the land of the appellant. Agreements were also executed between the appellant and the respondent-Bank.
2. The appellant failed to discharge his liabilities in terms of the agreement. The respondent-Bank being aggrieved filed suit for recovery of Rs.3,36,618 before the Banking Court. The appellant filed application for leave to defend before the Banking Court by raising legal and factual objections which was dismissed by the Banking Court as the appellant did not file an application for leave to defend within the prescribed period as time-barred. The suit of the respondent-Bank was decreed by the Banking Court vide judgment and decree dated 5-10-1998. The appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal.
3. ' Learned counsel of the appellant submits that the appellant secured only one loan amounting to Rs.29,000 from the respondent-Bank which was sanctioned by the respondent-Bank on the application of the appellant on 5-8-1991 vide Loan Case No,098959 whereas the second loan allegedly sanctioned in favour of the appellant by the respondent-Bank on 26-11-1990 amounting to Rs.2,08,030 vide Loan Case No,091378 is fictitious. The appellant has not applied for the said loan and did not receive the said amount. He further submits that the respondent-Bank sanctioned the first loan in favour of the appellant after securing signatures on blank papers from the appellant which were filled by the respondent-Bank subsequently. The respondent-Bank/Banking Court sent notice to the appellant on the address where the land of the appellant was situated but subsequently served the appellant at his temporary address mentioned in the application at Sialkot on 21-4-1996. He further urges that month of April is harvesting season, therefore, the appellant has to go to his land for the said purpose. The appellant came back at his temporary residence and found the notice dated 21-4-1996. There were holidays from 28th to 30th April, 1996 and 1st May, 1996 and the appellant immediately filed an application for leave to defend before the Banking Court on 8-5-1996 but this fact was not considered by the learned Banking Court in its true perspective. He further submits that it is the duty and obligation of the Baking Court as well as of the respondent-Bank to send notice to the appellant on two addresses mentioned in the application for securing loan. He further submits that the appellant denied the loan sanctioned allegedly in favour of the appellant on 26-11-1990, therefore, Banking Court erred in law not to grant leave to defend the case of the appellant without applying its judicial mind. He further urges that service of the appellant was not effected, therefore, judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court against the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the appellant has arguable case in view of the ground taken by the appellant in the application for leave to defend. He further submits that the appellant got a case registered against officials/officers of the respondent-Bank vide F.I.R. No,67 of 1998, registered at Police Station, C.B.C., Lahore on 22-10-1998. The respondent-Bank allegedly prepared the documents qua the loan secured by the appellant on 26-11-1990 from the respondent-Bank mala fidely, but this fact was not considered by the Baking Court in its true prospect.
4. ' Learned counsel of the respondent-Bank submits that the appellant has not mentioned correct address where the land of the appellant is situated in the application filed by the appellant for the purpose to secure loan from the respondent-Bank. The appellant is resident of Sialkot which address has been supplied by the appellant himself at the time of filing an application for securing the said loan. He further submits that the appellant is not serving anywhere in any Government or Semi-Government Department, therefore, the appellant could not take benefit of the holidays. Even otherwise the appellant has not filed the application immediately after Ist May, 1996, so Banking Court was justified to dismiss the application of the appellant as time-barred. He further submits that the criminal case has been closed by the F.I.A. Authorities as is evident from letter dated 12-12- 2000 written by the Deputy Director (Banking) to the Deputy Director, F.I.A., C.B.C., Lahore under the heading "Case F.I.R. No,67 of 1998 of F.I.A., C.B.C., Lahore".
5. ' Learned counsel of the appellant in rebuttal submits that address mentioned in the documents clearly reveals that the appellant is temporarily residing at Sialkot. The respondent-Bank has sent notice to the appellant at the address of his native town as is evident from page 44 of the appeal which is attached as Annexure G.
6. ' We have considered the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record ourselves.
7. ' It is better and appropriate to reproduce basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties.
8. ' The office sent summons to the appellant in view of the order of Banking Court dated 14-4-1996.
9. The appellant/ defendant filed reply to show-cause notice on 8-5-1996. Notice was also published in the daily "Frontier Post" on 21-4-1996 and in daily "Pakistan" on 20-4-1996. For our own satisfaction we direct learned counsel of the respondent-Bank to produce the original record vide order dated 30-10-2002. Learned counsel of the respondent-Bank has produced photo copy of the original record as the original record has already been secured by the F.I.A. Authorities after securing order dated 28-10-1998 from the Sessions Judge, Sialkot. The respondent-Bank requested the Deputy Director, F.I.A. To return the original record to the respondent-Bank. The last letter was sent by the Manager of the Bank to the Deputy Director, F.I.A. On 10-10-2003. The F.I.A. Did not return the original record to the respondent-Bank. Photo copy of the original record which was produced by the learned counsel of the respondent-Bank reveals the following addresses of the appellant:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The aforesaid addresses were mentioned by the appellant at the time of securing the loan in his application. The aforesaid addresses clearly reveal that the first address is incomplete. It is also admitted fact that the appellant did not deny the notice received on his second address on 21-4- 1996. As mentioned above, a public notice was also published in the daily "Frontier Post" on 21-4- 1996 and in the daily "Pakistan" on 20-4-1996. Under the Banking Laws, three modes of service have been mentioned which are accepted by the Courts as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1990 SC 497 Messrs Ahmad Autos v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited. It is also settled principle of law that the appellant has to file an application for leave to defend within the prescribed period under the Banking Laws which admittedly was not filed by the appellant, therefore, Banking Court was justified to decree the suit of the respondent-Bank in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Messrs Ahmed Autos' case supra. The contention of learned counsel of the appellant that respondent-Bank has secured signatures on blank paper from the appellant at the time of sanctioning loan, has no force in view of the law laid down by the Karachi High Court in Habib Bank Limited v. Cargo Despatch Company Ltd. And 4 others 1987 CLC 1002. The learned Banking Court also found in para.4 that the appellant has no case on merits.
10. Learned counsel of the appellant did not raise any objection qua finding of the Banking Court in para.4 on merits before us.
11. ' In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The appeal stands dismissed having no force.
12. ' However, it is also admitted fact that the appellant lodged a case against the respondent-Bank vide F.I.R. No,67 of 1998 on 22-10-1998 at Police Station C.B.C., Lahore in which Deputy Director (Banking) has written a letter to the Deputy Director, C.B.C., Lahore on 12-12-2000 which is to the following effect:-- "I am directed to refer to your Letter No,C-67/98/ 135/ DD/CBC/L dated 29-1-1999 on the subject and to say that the competent authority has accorded approval for closure of the subject case as was recommended by you."
13. ' Learned counsel of the parties did not place on record any order passed by the competent Court keeping in view the allegations levelled by the appellant. In the interest of justice and fairplay, let a copy of this order be sent to Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, who is directed to proceed in the matter qua the case F.I.R. No,67 of 1998 (mentioned above) and complete the process within a period of three months after receiving the order of this Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the officials/officers of the Bank sanction the loan in favour of the citizens after mortgaging the property of less value. In case the Bank Authorities shall mortgage the land or property of the citizens equal to the loan amount secured by the Bank Authorities at the time of sanctioning the loan then banking institutions should not be ruined through this modus operandi. The Banking Authorities and the loanee are beneficiaries of such fake transactions on account of this, we are constrained on the circumstances to send the case to the Chairman, NAB for necessary action and compliance. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.