1. ' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- This F.A.O. Has been filed to call in question the order, dated 19-6-1999, whereby, an application filed by the appellant/judgment-debtor for setting aside ex parte decree, dated 17-4-1993 was dismissed by the Banking Court.
2. ' The brief facts, out of which, the present appeal arises are that the respondent/bank filed suit for recovery of Rs,4,16,842 against the appellant on 1-9-1976 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, Subsequently, it was transferred from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, to the Banking Tribunal Lahore. The Banking Tribunal at Lahore vide order, dated 15-10-1992 transferred the case to the Banking Tribunal, Gujranwala. The appellant had been appearing before Banking Tribunal Lahore. The appellant had been summoned by the transferee Court through citation in the newspaper also but due to his non-appearance, ex parte decree was passed against the appellant vide judgment and decree, dated 17-4-1993. The appellant filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 19-3-1995. Para. 5 of the application reveals that the applicant came to know about the aforesaid decree on 8-3-1995 and the appellant filed application within time from the date of knowledge. The applicant also filed application for condonation of delay before the Banking Court. The Banking Court dismissed the application vide order, dated 19-6-1999.
3. ' The learned counsel of the appellant submits that the order for transfer of the case from Banking Tribunal Lahore to the Banking Tribunal at Gujranwala was without notice and even thereafter the appellant did not receive any notice from the transferee Court, hence, the ex parte decree, dated 17-4-1993 and the impugned order, dated 17-6-1999 are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that superior Courts have time and again observed that the cases must be decided on merit instead of technicalities and in case the impugned order is not set aside, then petitioner will be penalised by the act of the Court and the act of his counsel and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. ' The learned counsel of the respondent submits that the appellant mentioned date of knowledge in para. 5 of the application when he came to know about passing of ex parte decree against him by the Banking Tribunal vide judgment and decree, dated 13-4-1993, on 8-3-1995. The learned counsel referred to the application filed by the appellant on 19-3-1995 for setting aside the ex parte decree which reads as under:-- ' The court-fee affixed on the application is, dated 17-11-1994 which verifies that it was purchased on 17-11-1994; in the bottom of the application, the date is also given as 17-11-1994 and date of filing before the Banking Court is given as 19-3-1995.
5. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree was barred by time even from the date the appellant purchased the court-fee and prepared the application. Hence the impugned order passed by the Banking Court is in accordance with law.
6. ' We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record ourselves. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the dates to resolve the controversy between the parties in chronological order.
7. ' The suit was filed before Senior Civil Judge at Sialkot on 1-9-1976. Subsequently, the case was transferred by the Banking Tribunal at Lahore to the Banking Tribunal at Gujranwala vide order, dated 15-10-1992. Ex parte proceedings were initiated against the appellant on 4-4-1993 as the appellant did not appear despite service through citation in the newspaper for the said date, thus, decree was passed on 17-4-1993 and the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on 19-3-1995.
8. ' The application also reveals the following dates:- ' The court-fee affixed on the application was purchased on 17-11-1994; the application was drafted/prepared on 17-11-1994 as the same bears the signatures of the applicant as well as his counsel; date of knowledge in para. 5 of the application is mentioned as 8-3-1995 and application was filed in the Court on 19-3-1995.
9. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxta position, then it is crystal clear that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was hopelessly time-barred, even from the date of preparation of the application. The appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condonation of delay as the appellant had purchased the court-fee on 17-11-1994; drafted/prepared application as well as affidavit on 17-11-1994 but application was filed in the Court on 19-3-1995.
10. ' Moreover, the contention of the appellant that the transferee Court had not sent notice to the appellant is also contrary to the record. The appellant was even served through citation in Daily Mashriq Lahore published on 31-3-1993 for 4-4-1994 and ex parte proceedings were taken against the appellant on 4-4-1994 after due service. Therefore, the impugned order passed by Banking Court, dated 17-6-1999 and ex parte proceedings entailing ex parte decree are in accordance with law as per rule laid down in S. Irshad Hussain and another v. Azizullah Khan 1987 SCM R 150.
11. ' For what has been stated above, the appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.