' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---This appeal impugns the order dated 10-1-2002 passed by the learned Banking Court dismissing an application filed by the appellants-defendants seeking the setting aside of an ex parte decree passed against them on 14-4-2001 for recovery of a sum of Rs.408,888.
2. The facts of this case are straightforward. The appellant No,1 entered into an agreement with the respondent-Bank whereby the Bank agreed to advance a sum of Rs.3,00,000 by way of finance.
The appellant No,2, who is the brother of appellant No,1, stood surety for repayment of the finance.
The finance was in fact availed but was not repaid in accordance with the terms of the financing agreement. Consequently, the respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of the finance. Summons were issued to the appellants-defendants in . All the modes prescribed for service. The appellants- defendants did not appear or file any application seeking leave to defend. As a consequence, the aforesaid ex parte decree dated 14-4-2001 was passed against the appellants in favour of the respondent-Bank.
3. Subsequently, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was moved by the appellants- defendants. It was the case of the appellants that they had not been duly served and also that their address given in the. Plaint was incorrect. We have examined the record and find that the address is exactly the same as has been given by the appellants in the financing agreement and also in an irrevocable general power of attorney executed by the appellant No,
1. Furthermore, the learned Banking Court has rightly concluded that the appellants were served not only through citation but also through Manzoor Hussain appellant No, 1.
4. Before us, learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the stance of the appellants that their address given in the plaint was not correct. From the financing agreement and the power of attorney referred to above, we note that the address given by the appellants was Pindi Rajputan, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore, which is the address which has been given in the plaint also. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that their address was Khasra No,164 Khata No,135 at Pindi Rajputan, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore. According to him, the said address could have been taken by the Bank from the description of the property which was mortgaged by the appellants. This contention is misconceived because process cannot be served on the basis of Khasra numbers. Moreover, as noted above, in its plaint the Bank had given the address furnished by the appellants themselves.
5. However, in order to give a chance of hearing to the appellants, we are inclined to allow this appeal subject to payment of Rs.15,000 as costs. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10-1-2002 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Banking Court. The appellants shall be entitled to file their petition for leave to appear and defend the suit within ten days from today.