' Mr. Nadeem Akhtar, Advocate has waived notice of this appeal on behalf of respondent and placed his appearance on their behalf.
1. Granted.
' This appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, assails the order, dated 25-2-2006 passed by the Banking Court No,1, Karachi, whereby an application under section 12 of the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, moved by the appellant, for getting the ex parte judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court in Suit No,6/2004 set aside, was dismissed.
2. In his application before the Banking Court, case of the appellant was that he is permanently residing at Village Haji Dilbar Khan, Taluka and District Mirpurkhas; he does not know reading or writing English, except putting his signatures; the newspapers in which summons/notices of the said suit were published, namely daily 'Dawn' and -Jang- Karachi do not come to his village, therefore, he had no knowledge about passing of such ex parte judgment and decree in the suit against him before 30-6-2004, whereafter he immediately moved such application before the Court in July, 2004.
3. During the course of hearing of other appeals preferred by the appellant, being 1st Appeal No, 42 of 2004 and Ist Appeal No,52/2003, when the fact regarding the pendency of such application moved by the appellant before the Banking Court was brought to our notice, vide order, dated 1-2- 2006, we have directed the Banking Court to decide the said application. It seems that in pursuance to such order the learned Banking Court has proceeded and decided the said application by impugned order.
4. Mr. Neel Keshav learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments reiterated the same facts, as noted above, regarding the case of the appellant for getting set aside the ex parte judgment and decree in Suit No, 6 of 2004 passed against him. He also made reference to the Photostat copies of NIC of the appellant and the Voters-List of his village for the year 2002, to substantiate his assertion about the permanent residence of the appellant at village Haji Dilbar Khan, Taluka and District Mirpurkhas.
5. Indeed, the assertion of the learned counsel as regards the permanent residence of the appellant is supported by some documents but the fact remains that while making dealings with the respondent, he had given the same address, on which, after institution of the suit, notices/summons were issued to him from the Banking Court, through ordinary mode, registered post A.D. And courier service, and simultaneously publication of notices in one English and one Urdu newspapers of wide circulation was effected to meet the requirement of law. Before us it has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not informed the respondent Modaraba Gout his alleged change of address, in case he had vacated his residence at Karachi and started permanently residing at his village in District Mirpurkhas. Further in his application under section 12 of the Ordinance of 2001 the appellant deliberately did not disclose certain material facts that in what capacity he was occupying the said flat in Ali's Apartments, Korangi Road, Karachi; when he had allegedly vacated such flat; who is now in occupation of said flat and in what capacity, as in the normal course of human behaviour if one shifts from the premises in his occupation (may be -rated or self-owned), more particularly when facing litigation and disputes, he does inform the new occupants of the flat r the management of the apartments in a project, about his new/permanent address so that important correspondence/ letters/notices may either be redirected to him on such address or at least his new address may be disclosed to the cat ri.Tr. The appellant being mum on all these material facts can not take benefit of his own casual attitude in this regard.
6. The learned Banking Court Judge has taken areful examination of the relevant material placed before him and aptly noted that even in the memo of appeal presented by the appellant in the year 2003, being Ist Appeal No,52 of 2()03 he has shown his same address which was mentioned in the title of the plaint in Suit No, 6 of 2004. Moreover, on bare perusal of the signatures of the appellant on his NIC and other documents purportedly executed by him in favour of the respondent 13ank, execution whereof at least to the extent of such signatures is not denied, we are constrained to observe that the stand taken by the appellant that neither he can read nor write English is baseless, as the firmness and fluency of his signatures is clearly indicative of the fact that he deliberately hid material facts from the Court, to make out some case for getting set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The learned Banking Court Judge while passing the impugned judgment has recorded the relevant facts and cogent reasons, which fully justify passing of impugned order. Such findings are unexceptionable. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.