' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---A suit tiled by the respondent-Bank for recovery of Rs,25,63,570 was decreed ex parte by the learned trial Court on 3-12-1998. On 3-10-1999 the appellants filed an application under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 for setting aside of the ex parte decree. The plea was that they had never been served in the manner prescribed. The allegation was contested by the respondent-Bank. The learned trial proceeded to dismiss the application vide impugned order, dated 16-2-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that it is a matter of record that correct addresses of the appellants had not been stated in the plaint and all the processes issued on the said addressees had been returned unserved as none of the appellants were found at the given addresses. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on the other hand, argues that the substituted service had been lawfully effected by publication of the notice in the newspapers and as such the ex parte decree cannot be questioned by the appellants.
3. We have gone through the trial Court record. Having examined the plaint as also the several notices and envelopes as also reports of the process server and the Postal Authorities we feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. We find that whereas the correct address is stated to be B/95, Defence, Lahore, in the plaint the address was stated as B/59, Defence, Lahore. Of course the notices through registered post were issued on the said address and so is the case with notices to the appellants through the Courier Service. These were the course returned back with the endorsement that the addressees are not to be found, at the said addresses.
4. We have also noted with some concern that one of the defendants in the suit namely Mst. Maira Khan was stated to be a minor and was sued through her father Muhammad Akram Khan.
However, we find that notices through registered post were issued directly to the said defendant describing her to be the owner of Plot No,83, Gulfishan Colony, Sheikhupura Road, Lahore. It was of course reported that the lady is not residing at the plot. So far as the publication of the notice in newspapers is concerned, we do not find any certificate issued by the Management of the said newspapers to the effect that the papers were sent to the appellants under postal certificate. Even if it had been so done, it was not possible for the said newspapers to reach the appellants as same wrong address was stated in the notice published in the newspapers as well. We are, therefore, satisfied that the appellants had not been served in any manner prescribed by law in the course of the suit filed by the respondent-Bank in order to enable them to put in appearance and to seek leave to defend the suit. This F.A.O. Is accordingly allowed. The impugned order, dated 26-2-2000 as also the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 3-12-1998 passed by the learned trial Court are set aside. The result would be that the suit shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Bank Court No,IV, Lahore.
5. No orders as to costs.