1. ' This application is filed on behalf of defendants Nos.2 and 3 seeking extension of time by one day.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of one Muhammad Saeed, Deputy General Manager (F&A) of defendant No,2. It is averred in the affidavit that the summons pertaining to the present suit was served in the office of defendant No,2 through Bailiff on 8-3-1999 whereas summons were published in daily Nawa-e-Waqt, dated 6th March, 1999. The application for leave to defend. C.M.A.
3. No,2637 of 1999, purportedly filed on behalf of defendants Nos.2 and 3, is stated to have been signed on 26th March, 1999 on which date affidavit in support thereof was also sworn by the very Deputy General Manager of defendant No,2. It is further stated in the affidavit that the application for leave alongwith the affidavit were left by the Advocate on the desk of Branch Superintendent of this Court on 26-3-1999. According to the affidavit, it was subsequently learnt that the office had raised objection to the effect that the application for leave to defend had been presented on 27-3- 1999 and was, therefore, beyond the statutory period of 21 days computed from 5-3-1999 on which date summons were published in another newspaper. It is further averred in the affidavit that the affidavit was sworn on 26-3-1999 which was within 21 days from 5-3-1999 and, therefore, the application for leave was within time. In any case, it is stated that publication in Urdu newspaper having been effected on 6-3-1999, the time for filing would expire on 27-3-1999. This application, therefore, is stated to have been filed by way of abundant caution.
4. ' Mr. Khalilur Rehman, in support of this application, has urged that the summons were served on defendant through Bailiff on 6-3-1999 and publication in Urdu newspaper was effected on the same date. The time for filing the leave application, therefore, has to be computed with effect from 6-3-1999. The learned counsel submits that in the event of publication in differed newspapers on different dates, the latter date has to be treated as the date of service through publication. The learned counsel concedes that the correction made in the affidavit of Muhammad Saeed about service of summons through Bailiff, to read as 8-3-1999, is incorrect and the service of summons was effected by Bailiff on 6-3-1999. As regards the date of presentation which is marked on the application for leave as 27-3-1999, the learned counsel does not controvert the same.
5. ' It may be noted that the endorsement made by the Superintendent of the Branch shows that the application for leave was presented on 27-3-1999 and the deponent of the affidavit has not stated from his personal knowledge if the application was presented on the preceding day. The Advocate who is stated to have left the application with the Superintendent of the Branch on 26-3-1999 has not filed any personal affidavit. In any event, the learned counsel for the defendants Nos.2 and 3 having stated that he does not controvert the endorsement made by the Superintendent of the Branch, the above aspect does not require to be discussed further. As regards the date of service of summons through Bailiff, the endorsement made by the Bailiff does not show any date of service of defendant No,2. I have sent for the Bailiff who has shown me the Register maintained by him wherein it is noticed that summons were served on 5-3-1999. The Bailiff has neither filled-up the pro forma nor the date of service in his report. Call for his explanation. The date of service of summons, in any event, having been verified from the Register maintained by the Bailiff, cannot be treated differently. The rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Messrs Ahmed Autos v. Allied Bank of Pakistan PLD 1990 SC 497 is that in the event of different modes, service has to be held good if it is effected in any of the modes. Consequently, the service through publication effected on 5th March, 1999 having not been disputed the defendants are deemed to have been served from such date. The time for filing application for leave to defend can be extended only if the Court is satisfied that the defendants did not have knowledge of publication. In the present case the defendants Nos.2 and 3 have not even made a bare statement that the publication in daily "Dawn" on 5-3-1999 was not within their knowledge. In the circumstances, no ground for extension of time for filing application for leave to defend, having been shown, this application is dismissed.
6. ' Before parting, it may be noted that the application for leave to defend, filed on behalf of defendants Nos.2 and 3, is signed only by the learned counsel. The Vakalatnama for defendant No,3 has, however, been filed much latter on 2-4-1999. The question, if the application for leave to defend, C.M.A. No,2637 of 1999, can be treated to have validly been filed by defendant No,3 shall have to be considered when the said application for leave is put up for hearing. The description of defendant No,3 in the title is also rather strange. The effect of such description, again, shall be considered when the application for leave to defend comes for consideration.