' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.-This appeal, filed by the appellants-defendants, assails the order dated 22-1-2003 passed by the learned Banking Court No,IV, Lahore. The facts of this case are simple. The respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,03,225 against the appellants-defendants. The appellants were ordered to be served in the prescribed modes of service. The report of service shows that the appellants were not residing at the address given in the plaint. Service through citation in the Daily Nawa-e-Waqt and the Daily Times was also ordered. In the Daily Times, the name of the appellants was incorrectly mentioned as Zameer rather than Zamin Chemicals. The appellants did not, therefore, appear before the Banking Court. An ex parte decree dated 30-8- 2002 was passed against them.
2. It is the case of the appellants that they came to know of the ex parte decree on 23-11-2002. 24- 11-2002 being a Sunday they presented a petition for setting aside of the ex parte decree on the following day i.e. 25-11-2002. The matter was thereafter fixed for hearing on 21-1-2003. During arguments it was noted that the appellants had mentioned 23-10-2002 as the date of their knowledge of the ex parte decree instead of 23-11-2002. On the same day they filed an application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. To amend the application filed by them. The said application was dismissed on the ground that it had been presented after the passing of the order. This short order has been made on the face of the application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. The order is dated 21-1- 2003. Order on the application for setting aside is dated 22-1-2003. On this basis learned counsel for the appellants has argued that even on the face of the record the dismissal of the application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Is not legally sustainable. -3. In addition to the above, it is contended that the mention of 23-10-2002 as the date of knowledge, was on account of inadvertence. This is established from the application for setting aside which itself averred that 24-11-2002 was a Sunday. From the contents of paragraph (i) of the said application it is evident that the appellants had erroneously mentioned 23-10-2002 as their date of knowledge of the ex parte decree instead of 23-11-2002. In any event, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants were entitled to service of notice in each of the prescribed modes. This included notice through one English and one Urdu Daily. As noted above, the advertisement in the Daily Times did not fulfil the requirements of a notice on the appellants because of the incorrect name given therein.
4. The contentions of learned counsel for the appellants, as noted above, are well founded. The appellants could not have been non-suited without first ensuring that proper notice in each of the prescribed modes, had been issued. Since this has not been done, the impugned order dated 22-1- 2003 is set aside. The result is that the appellants-defendants shall be entitled to file a petition for leave to appear and defend the suit filed against them.