Hakim Muhammad Saeed, having availed of a loan facility to the tune of Rs.55,000 obtained on 15- 7-1978, from the House. Building Finance Corporation, for construction of house on a plot, in the People's Colony, Vehari, and having failed to discharge his liability, by making payment in monthly instalments of Rs.636 each, was proceeded against under section 30, House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952. The learned District Judge Vehari, who was approached in the matter on 9- 12-1992, passed an order on 20-7-1993, for " recovery of the arrears, having inflated, with accumulation of interest etc. to the tune of Rs.28,28,02.23, through auction of the loanee's property pledged with the creditor, being the very plot, on which the house was proposed to be built. It was ordered that vacant possession of the plot would be handed over to the Corporation, or the same would be put to auction and sale, and the sale proceeds would be passed on the Corporation, in lieu of the outstanding arrears; and for the purpose a copy of the order was sent to the District Collector, Vehari, for necessary proceedings.
2. Under section 30 (10) of the Act, an appeal has been preferred to this Court by Hakim Muhammad Saeed, pleading that requirements of the statute and mandate of dispensation of substantial justice have not been abided by. submission is that' the learned District Judge was under a legal obligation to have served the borrower, as also his surety, with notices under subsection (4) of section 30, and was further required to afford to the parties a reasonable opportunity to adduce their evidence. It is maintained that this was not done, and thus the entire exercise was irregular and had resulted in miscarriage of justice.
3. It appears that according to the appellant, the statement of accounts, accompanying the application, made to the learned District Judge by the Corporation, did not represent the correct state of affairs, inasmuch as the payments made by him so far were not accounted for. At the same time, it is also submitted by the appellant that, he is prepared to pay the amount of loan alongwith the interest that has accrued thereupon in easy instalments. In this regard it is to, be noted that the Corporation is to be deemed to be a Bank for the purpose of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, and the statement of accounts prepared and tendered by the Corporation is to be treated as carrying presumption of truth. It is not denied by the appellant that the District judge had jurisdiction in the matter and could make an order in the nature of the one complained of. He had however a right to approach this Court under subsection (10) of section 30, within 30 days from the date of such an order.
3. I find on a perusal of the record that Hakim Muhammad Saeed had on 13-5-1993 filed a rejoinder or reply to the Corporation---s petition dated 5-12-1992 and from that it would follow that he was not unaware of the proceedings and had been served with a notice.In the reply it has actually been admitted by the appellant that he did receive what he calls a formal notice.The impugned order was passed by the learned District Judge on 20-7-1993.Application for obtaining its certified copy alongwith copies of the other requisite documents was submitted on 8-9-1993 and the copies were made available on19-9-1993.The instant appeal was of course filed without delay on 19-9- 1993.but there is no explanation for delay of 49/50 days with which the appellant has approached the copying agency for getting certified copies of the documents.It is not understandable as to how has the office recorded a note to the effect that the appeal has been filed within time although it is palpably time barred and cannot proceed particularly when no prayer even has been made for condonation of the delay under section 5 Limitation Act.The appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.