' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--The respondent-Bank, brought a suit for recovery amounting to Rs.10,798,396.50 against the present appellants. Summons through registered post and courier service etc., were issued to the appellants on 13-3-2002 and the publication of notice in the Daily Newspapers was effected on 1-3-2002. As the appellants did not file the leave application within the requisite time, resultantly, the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 3-4-2002, allowed the suit. Thereafter, the appellants moved an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for setting aside the decree, mainly on the ground that they have not been served, rather had attained the knowledge of the ex parte decree from the officials of the Bank on 11-4-2002 and immediately moved the application. This application has been rejected by learned Banking Court finding that, the appellants were duly served; they did not file the leave application within the requisite time, resultantly, no cause for setting aside the decree has been made out. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends, that summons in the form of registered post, courier service etc., were issued to the appellants on 13-3-2002 and thus, the requisite period of 30 days had not yet expired, when the decree was passed on 3-4-2002.
3. However, when confronted that the publication of notice had also been effected in the two Daily Newspapers on 1-3-2002 and 30 days had passed by 3-4-2002, he states that such publication did not come to the knowledge of the appellants and thus, the application could not be moved from that date i.e. 1-3-2002.
4. We are afraid, the above contentions have no force for the reason that, service of the defendant in a suit, under the Ordinance, in any of the form, is a proper and adequate service and because the publication in the newspapers had taken effect on 1-3-2002, thus, the period for filing the leave application, commenced from that date, which was not filed within the time provided. Therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the learned Banking Court, calling for interference in appeal. Dismissed.