1. ' C.MA. No, 1754 of 1987 is an application under Order 37 Rules 2 and 3 read with section 151, C.P.C.
2. Made by Defendants Nos.4 and 7, while C.MA. No,1755 of 1987 is a similar application made by Defendants Nos.1, 5 and 8, while C.MA. No, 4665 of 1988 is another similar application made by Defendant No,8.
3. ' The Plaintiff/National Bank of Pakistan has filed this suit for recovery of Rs,43,18,666 against the Defendants. Defendant No,1 obtained loan under the Small Loans Scheme from the Plaintiff and loan of limit of Rs,30,00,000 was sanctioned. Defendants Nos.1, 2 to 5, 8 and 9 executed Promote for Rs,10,00,000 which was endorsed by Defendant No,1 in favour of the remaining Defendants. Similarly they also executed another Pronote of Rs,20,00,000. Defendants Nos.2 to 8 as a security for repayment mortgaged their residential premises at Hyderabad, while Defendants Nos.8 and 9 also mortgaged his agricultural land in District Dadu as security for repayment. Some more securities and hypothecation were also furnished. On 31-12-1986 the total outstanding amount against the Defendants comes to Rs,4,318,666 for which they are jointly and severally liable. Since the above amount has not been paid in spite of repeated demands, hence this suit.
4. ' The Defendants were served by publication on 14-3-1987 and by Bailiff on 21-3-1987, while the Registered Post A/D. Was returned unserved with the endorsement that the office was locked.
5. C.MAs. Nos. 1754 of 1987 and 1755 of 1987 were presented on 30-3-1987 and C.MA. No, 4665 of 1987 was presented on 24-10-1987.
6. ' A preliminary objection was taken by the Plaintiffs Counsel that all these applications are time- barred as the same have been presented after more than 10 days of the service of summons and are not even accompanied by application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
7. ' It was contended by the Advocates for the Defendants that service by publication was not good service and therefore the period of limitation should not be counted from that day. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court, reported in 1988 CLC 292, in the case of M/s. United Bank Ltd. v. Ali Habib and Co. Where it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court, while acting as Special Court, that service of summons could not be held good unless the Defendant was served with a summons in Form IV with a copy of plaint which was not possible in case of publication.
8. ' As against this the plaintiffs Advocate cited 1986 MLD 1965, United Bank ltd. v. Fairfex Textile Ltd.
9. And PLD 1987 Kar. 206, M/s. Union Bank of Middle East Ltd. v. M/s. Zubna Ltd. Wherein' it was held that service on Defendants by any one of the three modes will be considered as a good service.
10. ' The controversy which had arisen due to the conflicting judgments of the Court on the subject has been resolved by amending Rule 8 of the Banking B Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980 and now service by any one of the three modes is to be treated as a good service. In the latest ruling reported in PLD 1990 SC 497 Ahmad Autos v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. It has been held that service by publication is also one of the modes of service. The fact that copy of plaint cannot be enclosed for effecting service by publication does not in any way affect the validity of such service.
11. An application for leave to defend filed after more than 10 days of publication of summons in the newspaper is, therefore, barred by time. In this ruling the view taken in the case of M/s. Union Bank of Middle East Ltd. v. M/s. Zubna Ltd. Reported in PLD 1987 Kar. 206 was approved, while contrary view was not approved.
12. ' I am, therefore, satisfied that these applications are barred by limitation D having been filed more than 10 days after the publication of the summons in the newspaper. C.MA. No, 4665 of 1988 stands on a worse footing in that it is filed much more than 10 days after service by Bailiff as well. Apart from that the Defendants have not shown any triable issue or plausible defence. Defendants Nos.4 and 7 have denied their signatures, while the Defendant No,6 has denied having given any general Power of Attorney or any other authority in favour of Defendant No,2 Muhammad Azam to create any mortgage. They have not denied having utilised the loan or having executed Pro-Notes and Mortgage and Hypothecation Deeds. The photostat copies of the documents produced along with the plaint have not been denied. The signatures of the Defendants on these documents appear to be the same as their admitted signatures. It is, therefore, quite clear that by these applications the Defendants have raised a sham defence which does not justify the granting of any leave to defend the suit. Hence I dismiss C.MAs. Nos. 1754 of 1987, 1755 of 1987 and 4665 of 1987. The effect of the dismissal of these applications is that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree. Hence I decree the Plaintiff's suit for the sum of Rs,4,318,666.00 against all the Defendants jointly and severally. I further grant interest @ 14 % per annum from 31-12-1986 till the recovery of decretal amount. The costs of the suit shall be borne by the Defendants. A preliminary decree for mortgage is passed under Order 34 C.P.C. In case the decretal amount is not paid within a period of six months, final decree for sale of the mortgaged property shall follow. The amount of decree be realised as a first charge from the property of Defendant No,1 inclusive their garments, hosiery and machinery etc. Permanent injunction is also granted as prayed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.