' The order dated 1-3-2000 of the Banking Court, Lahore, has been assailed in this appeal whereby application of the appellant under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances Act) XV of 1997 has been dismissed.
2. An ex parte decree was passed in favour of. The Habib Bank Limited against the appellant and respondent No,2 on 18-11-1997 in the amount of Rs,1,87,796. The appellant moved an application for setting aside the said decree on 7-2-2000 which was dismissed vide the impugned order with the observation that the application was'. Hopelessly barred by time and no justification had been made out for condonation of the delay.
3. It was urged before the learned Banking Court as also before this Court that in the suit filed by the respondent-Bank, the address of the appellant, who was a guarantor, was not correctly indicated. Report of the process-server was also relied upon, according to which the appellant was not found at the given address. He contends that appellant had not been served in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of Act No, XV of 1997 and, therefore, the application could not have been dismissed as barred by time.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the learned Banking Court. The learned Banking Judge in the order dated 18- 11-1997 noted that summons were issued to the defendant in the suit on 27-10-1997 by Courier Service and by registered post but the same had not been received back undelivered with any report. Summons issued through bailiff remained unserved on the ground that the defendants are not living on the given address. Notices were also published in the Daily "Nation" and "Musawat" on 28-10-1997. In the circumstances the learned Banking Court passed the decree against the appellant and the co-defendant in the suit.
5. The only discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the address of the appellant instead "near Slaughter House, Bakar Mandi, Bund Road, Lahore", the address indicated was "near Slaughter House, Nagar Mandi, Bund Road, Lahore". The fact that the appellant is resident of Kot Kamboh Khurd is not disputed because even in the present appeal the appellant has indicated his address as resident of Kot Kamboh Khurd. In the guarantee document executed by the appellant he had indicated his address as Kot Kamboh Khurd near Slaughter House, Bakar Mandi, Lahore. According to the report of the Bailiff the appellant was not found at the address of Kot Kamboh Khurd near Slaughter House. It appears that in the guarantee document, the appellant had not correctly given his address. The discrepancy i,e, "Nagarmandi" instead of "Bakar Mandi" was, therefore, of no consequence as long as the address of the appellant as resident of Kot Kamboh Khurd was correct.
6. According to section 12 of Act No,XV of 1997, the starting point for getting an ex parte decree set aside is 21 days from the date of the decree or when the summons were not duly served when the applicant had the knowledge of the decree. We have perused the application of the appellant moved under section 12 of the aforesaid Act and find that there is no averment in the said application as to when the ex parte decree came to the knowledge of the appellant. Publication of notice in the newspaper is a permissible mode of service in accordance with section 9(3) of Act No, XV of 1997 and will be deemed to be due service. We have examined the notice published in the aforesaid daily newspapeRs, All particulars of the appellant, i,e, his name, parentage and place of residence i,e, Kot Kamboh Khurd have correctly been given in the said notice. Therefore, the learned Banking Court was fully justified to dismiss the application as barred by time.
7. Accordingly, we see no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.