SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---The judgment and decree dated 6-3-2000 passed by the learned Banking Court has been assailed through this appeal.
2. Messrs National Bank of Pakistan Ltd., filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.32,418,862 in which the appellants were served through publication of the notice in the daily 'Nawa-i-Waqt' and 'Nation' of 2-6-1999. Their personal service was effected on 15-6-1999. They filed petitions for leave to appear and defend bearing Nos.78-B of 1999, 79-B of 1999, 80-B of 1999, 81-B of 1999 and 82-B of 1999. Petition No.78-B of 1999 by appellant No. 1 and Petition No. 80-B of 1999 by appellants Nos. 3 and 4 were dismissed for non-prosecution while Petitions Nos.79-B of 1999, 81 of 1999 and 82-B of 1999 moved by other appellant except appellant No.6 were dismissed on the ground that these have been filed beyond the prescribed period of 21 days from the date of publication of the notice in the newspapers.
3. The order impugned is a composite order. However, the learned counsel has addressed arguments against dismissal of P.L.A.S. Nos.79, 81 and 82-B of 1999 only. He contends that even though Petitions Nos.79, 81 and 82-B of 1999 were made beyond 21 days of service through publication of notice in the newspapers yet under proviso to section 10 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), the learned Banking Court could condone the delay and hear the petitions on merits. .
4. He has next contended that appellant No.6 was a minor and no decree could be passed against him without appointing his guardian ad item.
5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. We find that no application seeking condonation of del was made before the learned Banking Court and there was no explanation for the delay in making these petitions. The position taken before the learned Banking Court was that limitation for filing petitions for leave to appear and defend started from 15-6-1999 on which date the appellants were personally served. The argument was repelled on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Messrs Qureshi Salt and Spices and another v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And 3 others (1999 SCM R 2353). We are not persuaded to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the Banking Court should have condoned the delay suo motu. The appellants were bound to satisfy the learned Banking Court and this could only be done if facts justifying condonation of delay had been placed before the learned Banking Judge through an application or even in the application seeking leave to appear and defend.
6. As far as the decree against the minor is concerned, it is an admitted position that no application for leave to appear and defend was filed on his behalf. Even to his extent the suit could be defended if leave to appear and defend was obtained on his behalf.
We, accordingly, see no ground to interfere. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.