Through instant first appeal against order filed 'under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance ("FIO"), 2001, appellant has assailed order dated 08.04.2014, passed by learned Judge Banking Court-II, Lahore, whereby appellant's application under Section 12 of the FIO, 2001, for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 30.01.2010, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-bank instituted suit for recovery of Rs. 20,21,257.43 against the appellant, claiming therein that appellant availed running finance facility against the security of hypothecation of stock as well as mortgage .of properties, but failed to discharge liability under the agreement for financing. The suit was ex parte decreed vide judgment & decree .dated 30.01.2010. Appellant moved an application under Section 12 of the FIO, 2001, for setting aside aforesa id ex parte judgment & decree, which was contested by respondent-bank by filing written reply . Learned Judge Banking Court, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, dismissed said application vide impugned order dated 08.04.2014. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submit s that due to change of appellant's address, he could not be served, therefore, impugned ex parte judgment & decree dated 30.01.2010 was liable to be set aside. In the end, he submits that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law .
4. Heard. Available record perused,
5. Perusal of record reveals that neither the appellant has mentioned his address in application under Section 12 of the FIO, 2001 nor taken any specific stance regarding change of address or the address where he was allegedly residing at the time of issuance of proces s of Court. It is further transpired that all the four modes of service were adopted as per the address of appellant given in his documents submitted before the respondent-bank at the time of availing running finance facility . Learne d Judge Banking Court, after examining the record, rightly dismissed the application under Section 12 of the FIO, 2001 vide impugned order dated 08.04.2014, operative part whereof is reproduced hereunder:- "It is amazing to note that the present applicant/ judgment debtor has not given his address on this application, which is a material concealment of facts. He has shown coming to the knowledge of the ex-parte decree through notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. I have examined the address of the applicant given on the notices under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, which is same as given in the plaint and the summ ons issued for service of the applicant/defendant, it is further noticed that the all four methods of securing service of applicant/defendant have been adopted in accordance with the address of the present applicant given in his documents submitted before the plaintif f bank for securing finance facility . The applicant has not taken any stance regarding change of address and has not mentioned the address where he was allegedly residing at the time of issuance of process of Court, Therefore, the application in hand has no force, hence, the same is dismissed "
6. Learned counsel for appellant has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order , therefore, no interference is warranted.
7. Resultantly , this appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.