UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This appeal is filed against the order dated 17-12-2002 passed by the learned Banking Court rejecting in limine the appellant's application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances} Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance") filed on the same date to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27-8-2002.
2. Whilst considering the appellant's plea of non-service of the summons in the suit filed by the respondent-Bank, the learned Banking Court has referred to service of notice of the proceedings on the appellant by publication in two dailies, namely, "Samaj" and "Dawn". In addition thereto reference has been made to the report of postal authority on the registered A.D. Notice which notes on 21-6-2002 that the addressee/ appellant has refused to accept service. By noting that the address of the appellant given on the sanction letter dated 23-2-1998 and also on a receipt of acknowledgement of loan was the same on which she was sued, the learned Banking Court has concluded ,that the appellant was duly served as notice was sent to the address given by the appellant to the respondent-Bank; and in any event, in case of change of her address, the appellant should have informed the respondent-Bank thereof. Consequently, the appellant was concluded to have intentionally avoided service as noted on the registered A.D.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Banking Court. The registered A.D. Form contains another note by the postman dated 18-6-2002 recording that the addressee had moved and was available at a different address located outside Head Shapur Abadi. On 21-6-2002 a different postman gave the aforementioned report of her intentional refusal to accept service. Accordingly, there is inconsistency in the postal reports, which makes the latter unreliable. The summons sent through process server contains as report dated 25-6-2002 that the appellant has shifted to a new address The process server's report creates doubt as to service being effected on the appellant in compliance with provisions of section 9(5) of the B Ordinance, Moreover the principal document upon which the suit by the respondent-Bank is filed, namely, loan agreement dated 23-2-1998, which is duly signed by both the parties records address of the appellant to be Chak. No.
25. Neither the sanction letter relied by the impugned order nor the receipt for acknowledgement of loan are signed by the appellant. These documenth cannot 'therefore, be given overriding weight on the point of the petitioner's address of service.
4. In the foregoing background, the present case is one wherein appellant may at best be deemed to have been served through notice by publication alone. The bailiff did not serve summons and the conflicting reports of the postmen render service of the appellant by registered post A.D. To be doubtful. The fact that the principal document in the case, namely, the loan agreement records a different address of residence of the appellant from the one on which she was sued and purportedly served with notice, makes this a case in which the learned Banking Court should have issued notice on the appellant's application to the respondent-Bank and allowed the parties to bring their evidence on the matter. Therefore, rejection in limine of the appellant's application under section 12 of the Ordinance by the impugned order is inappropriate. That order is accordingly set aside and ' the matter is remanded to the learned Banking Court for consideration afresh after granting hearing to the parties including an opportunity to lead evidence. .