ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.--- This appeal has been filed under Section 22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the "Ordinance, 2001") against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2017 passed in Suit No. 19/2017 by the Banking Court of Balochistan, Quetta ("trial Court") whereby the trial Court decreed the said suit in favour of respondent Bank.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant availed the financial facility of Rs. 13,60,000/- from respondent Bank after executing the collateral documents as per Banking Rules but later on, on appellant's failure to repay the same, the respondent Bank filed the said suit for recovery against the appellant. Appellant appeared before the trial Court and did not file application for leave to defend, as a consequence whereof the respondent Bank was awarded a money decree as prayed with cost of fund as per the rate provided by the State Bank of Pakistan from the period of date of default till realization of the money vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.04.2017.
3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the impugned judgment is not in conformity with the law as the statement of accounts, which are required to be annexed alongwith the plaint under Section 9(ii) of the Ordinance 2001 were not filed, therefore the mandatory requirement of law was frustrated. It was next urged by learned counsel that service of summons were not affected upon the appellant. He next argued that on 14th February the trial Court registered the suit, whereby the appellant was summoned and suit was fixed for 17th of March, 2017 for appellant's appearance. On the said date the appellant's counsel appeared and undertook to file Vakalatnama on the next date of hearing i.e. 4th April, 2017, however on the said date the appellant's counsel was unable to appeared before the Court as he was busy in different Courts, but the trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent Bank ex-parte against the appellant and no opportunity was given to appellant to justify absence of his counsel,
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. I contended that appellant on account of his own act and deeds is estopped from challenging the vires of the impugned judgment, as he did not file application for leave to defend in time. It is next urged summons were published in daily "JANG" and daily "Frontier Post" on 18.02.2017 after the suit was filed in the Banking Court, therefore the appellant was required to file written statement/application for leave to defend on/or before 18th March, 2017 as he has proceeded to file application for leave to defend under section 12 of the Ordinance, 2001.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced at bar. At this stage, it would be convenient to reproduce a text of sections 9(5) and 10(2) of the Ordinance 2001, herein below in extenso:--- "9. Procedure of Banking Court."
(3) ... ..................
(4)............
(5) On a plaint being presented to the Banking Court, summons in Form No. 4 in Appendix 'B' to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) or in such other form as may, from time to time, be prescribed by rules, shall be served on the defendant through the bailiff or process server of the Banking Court, by registered post acknowledge due, by courier and by publication in one English language and one Urdu language daily newspaper, and service duly effected in any one of the aforesaid modes shall be deemed to be valid service for purposes of this Ordinance. In the case of service of the summons through the bailiff or process server, a copy of the plaint shall be attached therewith and in all the cases the defendant shall be entitled to obtain a copy of the plaint from the office of the Banking Court without making a written application but against due acknowledgment. The Banking Court shall ensure that the publication of summons takes place in newspapers with a wide circulation within its territorial limits."
10. Leave to defend. (1) ....................
(2) The defendant shall file the application of leave to defend through publication in the newspapers; the Banking Court may extend the time for filing an application for leave to defend if satisfied that the defendant did not have knowledge thereof.
6. It is a golden rule of interpretation of law that the words used by the legislature are to be read and understood in plain and ordinary meanings. Bare reading of section 9(5) visualizes that after the plaint has been presented in the Banking Court summons shall be served upon the defendant through bailiff or process server, by registered post acknowledgement due, by courier and by publication in one English language and one Urdu language daily newspapers and service duly effected in any one of the aforesaid modes shall be deemed to be valid service for the purpose of this Ordinance. Section 10(2) of the Ordinance provides that the defendant shall file the application for leave to defend within thirty days of the date of first service by any one of the modes laid down in section 9(5). The object of the Ordinance was to provide machinery for expeditious recovery of the money.
7. Admittedly the suit was registered on 14.02.2017 and publication was made in Daily Jang and Frontier Post Quetta on 18.02.2017 and the case was fixed for 17.03.2017 meaning thereby, the appellant was served through the said publication in newspapers. But on 17.03.2017 learned counsel for appellant appeared before the trial Court and undertook to file vakalatnama on behalf of appellant on the next date, whereafter the case was fixed for 04.04.2017 but on the said date neither appellant or his counsel appeared before the trial Court nor any application for leave to defend the suit was filed, hence on the same date the suit filed by respondent Bank was decreed ex-parte against appellant. In terms of Section 10 of the Ordinance 2001 the appellant was required to make an application for leave to defend the suit within thirty days after publication but admittedly on 04.04.2017 the appellant despite lapse of a month and sixteen days after publication did not file any application for leave to defend, which was otherwise beyond prescribed period of thirty days.
8. On the other hand all the requirement of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 of the Ordinance, 2001 were fulfilled by the respondent Bank as statement of account and all the charged documents were annexed with the plaint.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clear in our mind that neither appellant has filed leave application a required by the Ordinance, 2001 nor showed any sufficient cause regarding his absence as well as non-appearance of his counsel on 04.04.2017 when the subject suit was fixed before the trial Court: Consequently, we do not observe any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned verdict of the learned Banking Court, which does not call for any interference by this Court, hence maintained. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.