P.L.A. No.78-B of 1999 No one has appeared for defendant No. l/applicant.
2. This application is dismissed for non-prosecution.
P.L.A. No.80-B of 1999
3. No one has appeared for defendant No.3/applicant.
4. This application is dismissed for non-prosecution.
P.L.A. Nos.79, 81 and 82-B of 1999
5. These applications have been moved by defendants Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 7 respectively for grant of leave to appear and defend the suit.
6. Learned counsel for plaintiff points out that these applications are beyond the prescribed period of time. This objection is borne out by the record which shows-that. The petitioner was served through publication and summons in Daily 'Nawa-i-Waqt' and 'Nation' dated 2nd of June, 1999 while these applications have been filed on 26th of May, 1999 and are beyond the period of limitation.
7. There is no explanation for the delay except that it has been claimed that the petitioners were served with notices on 15th of June, 1999 and as such, the applications were within time. The assertion is based on misconception of law inasmuch as the limitation runs on the date when P summons were served in any of the methods provided under section 9(3) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and not necessarily from the date of personal service. If any authority is needed in this behalf, reliance is placed on the judgment reported as M/s Qureshi Salt & Spices and another v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. And 3 others (1999 SCM R 2353).