' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The point on which the present appeal was admitted to regular hearing has been noted in the admitting order. Dated 22-4-2002.
2. Before us, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has contended that the appellant- defendant was served through courier. We have seen the relevant envelope of the courier service.
This does not at any place indicate that it has been issued by any Court or sets out the consequences if it is not accepted. Secondly, the report of the courier is that the appellant was not available in Pakistan as the report itself shows that the functionary of the courier was informed that the appellant had gone to America. In these circumstances, we cannot hold that the appellant was served through courier service.
3. Secondly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the appellant had been served through affixation. This contention also is not legally tenable because there was no order passed by the learned Banking Court ordering service through affixation. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank states that under the C.P.C. If personal service was not accepted the person required to be severed could be served through affixation. In the present case, the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 expressly provides for modes of service. These do not include service through affixation. The Court could have passed an order to have the appellant served through any other mode including affixation.
However, as noted above, this was not done by the learned Banking Court. In these circumstances, service through affixation cannot be imputed to the appellant-defendant.
4. We note that the learned Banking Court has treated the citation in daily The Nation' as good service on the appellant on the ground that the said Newspaper is also read in the U.S.A. By the Pakistani community. This is the sole basis stated by the learned Banking Court to hold that the appellant had been served. In our opinion, this cannot constitute proper service, particularly when the appellant has been able to establish in Court through copies of his passport that he was not in Pakistan at the time the citation appeared in daily The Nation'.
5. In the above circumstances, we hold that the appellant was not duly served when the decree, dated 10-4-2001 was passed against him. In the circumstances. The application moved by the appellant seeking setting aside of the aforesaid decree is allowed. The appellant shall within ten days from today file his application seeking leave to appear and defend before the learned Banking Court. The learned Banking Court shall thereafter try to decide the said application, if possible. Within 60 days.
' This appeal is disposed of in the above terms.