' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant appeal is directed against order dated 10-2-2003 whereby application of the appellant for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 15-6- 2001 by the Banking Court-I, Lahore, was dismissed.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that the respondent, being a Banking Company, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,44,480 with mark-up till realization, at the rate of Rs. 17% per annum alongwith 20% liquidated damages, as per agreement between the parties, before the Banking Court at Lahore.
The Banking Court ordered issuance of summons/notices to the appellant through simultaneous process of ordinary means, registered cover acknowledgement due, courier service and publication in daily newspaper "Nawa-i-Waqt". In response to these notices, proclamation in daily "Nawa-i-Waqt" of 14-6-2001 requiring appearance of the appellant on 15-6-2001 was published and postal notices were. Delivered to the appellant but in spite of service, he did not appear and consequently Court granted an ex parte decree to the respondent for an amount of Rs.3,44,480 under section 9(4) of the Banking companies Act, 1997 and refused to grant the respondent liquidated damages, allowing mark-up in terms of agreement between the, parties.
3. The appellant Afzal Hussain one of the judgmentdebtors/defendants in the suit filed an application for setting aside ex parte decree dated 15-6-2001 with the averments that he is an illiterate person and was not served by the process of the Court and that service of notice on his servant is not lawful because servant is not a family member. This application was contested by the respondent and was dismissed through order dated 10-2-2003 by the Banking Court.
4. The appellant aggrieved of decision on his application-dated 10-2-2003, has come up in appeal before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no personal service of the appellant was effected for the date on which suit against him was decreed ex parte. According to his submissions, the appellant is an illiterate person and thus, could not read the proclamation in the newspaper and the notice delivered to some servant at home, cannot be considered a lawful service because servant iQ not a member of his family. He further submits that the appellant came to know of the decree only on 11-7-2001 through defendant No,2 whereafter he immediately filed application for setting aside ex parte decree before the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions of the appellant, supported the order of the trial. Court and urged that a lawful service of the appellant had been effected through post, as well as, publication in newspaper. According to her, story narrated in the application for setting aside ex parte decree is mere concoction. There is nothing on the file to show that the appellant is illiterate and lives with persons who are not educated. She further submits that application for setting aside ex parte decree was barred by limitation because decree was passed on 15-6-2001 and application was filed on 25-7-2001. She submits that neither there was any application for condonation of delay nor it was explained by any sufficient cause.
7. We have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the trial Court. Undeniably, process for service of the appellant was issued simultaneously through different modes. Proclamation in daily newspaper "Nawa-i- Waqt" dated 14-6-2001 requiring his appearance on 15-6-2001 was published which is sought to be avoiding by saying that the appellant is illiterate, without any proof in support of this stance. The appellant has signed application for setting aside ex parte decree and the affidavit appended therewith and thus it is not believable that he is illiterate, as asserted by him. Persons with less education daily read newspapers, hence, we are unable to believe a bald assertion of the appellant that he is illiterate. He has also not shown that he is living with his kith and kins who are not educated and that newspaper is not being read by any of his family members.
8. Process server who visited residence of the appellant for service of process issued by the trial Court reported that he met a woman at his residence to whom information was conveyed and she undertook to inform the appellant who in his application claimed this woman as his servant without disclosing her name. He does not deny that the lady who met the process server did not inform him, regarding pendency of the suit before the trial Court. It is in a way, admission of service of notice, on his part.
9. Notices issued under postal cover were delivered at the address given in the plaint, which is not asserted to be incorrect. The appellant has not denied this delivery at his residence but simply pleaded that Akmal Hussain who received the postal cover, was alien to him. In the given circumstances, it will be presumed that the registered cover was received by some male member of his family and his service was complete.
10. The appellant himself narrated in para.2 of his application for setting aside of ex parte decree that he came to know of the decree from defendant No, 2 on 11-7-2001. It is not explained as to why the application was filed on 25-7-2001, after 14 days from the date of knowledge. On gaining knowledge, he could have filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree, within one month, which was to lapse on 15-7-2001, as such, application for setting aside ex parte decree was barred by limitation and without condonation of delay, on some application and specific order, deserved no adjudication.
11. For what has been discussed above, it is clear that the appellant was served, on the process issued by the trial Court before passing of decree and there was no sufficient cause, shown by the appellant in his application. For setting aside the decree, hence, the order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality. This appeal has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.