Pakistan Case Law
2011 SCMR 1469

Messrs AXLEPRODUCTS LIMITED vs Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2011 SCMR 1469
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 19-K of 2009
Date2009-02-10
Judge(s)Sabihuddin Ahmed and Sarmad Jalal Osmany
Authored bySabihuddin Ahmed
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal against an order of the Banking Court, which had refused to set aside an ex parte decree passed under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 read with section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner contended that the ex parte decree was passed without proper service of summons, arguing that substituted service through publication was resorted to without first exhausting personal service methods. The core legal questions involve whether service of summons through publication under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is valid when other modes are not exhausted, and whether special procedure rules for service in banking matters meet constitutional standards of reasonable classification. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions regarding the statutory interpretation of service provisions under the Ordinance and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether service of summons through publication under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is valid without exhausting other modes of service?
  • Can an ex parte decree passed by a Banking Court be set aside under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 read with section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on grounds of defective service?
  • Does the special procedure for service of summons provided under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 satisfy the principle of reasonable classification?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 12, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
  • Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Section 9, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
ex parte decreeservice of summonssubstituted servicebanking courtfinancial institutions recoveryleave to appeal

ORDER

' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---This petition emanates from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal against an order of the Banking Court under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 2001) read with section 12(2), C.P.C. In the aforesaid application the petitioner sought setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that it had been passed without proper service of summons upon them in suit No,55 of 2003. Admittedly service of summons was effected through publication but the petitioner however contended that no personal service has been effected upon them either through bailiff or through registered post and courier and summons were pasted on an address where the petitioner's office had seized to exist.

2. While it is well settled that service through publication could only be resorted to upon the failure of other modes under the C.P.C. Nevertheless Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman, learned counsel for the respondent forcefully contended that section 9 of the Ordinance, 2001, expressly stipulated service of summons through any of the five modes stated therein was valid. Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner however argued that there was no reason for relying upon service through publication when it was evident that other modes had not even been resorted to.

3. Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari urged that an ex parte decree should not have been passed unless it was clearly shown that personal service through other methods stated in section 9 of the Ordinance, 2001 have been resorted to but summons could not be found to have been served. He relied upon a recent unreported judgment of a three member Bench of this Court in the case of Mobarak All v. First Prudential Modaraba (C.Ps. Nos.139-K and 273K of 2006) decided on 4-1-2007.

Mr. Azizur-Rehman on the other hand referred to an earlier judgment of a two member bench in the case of Messrs Ahmad Autos and another v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited (PLD 1990 SC 497) where a somewhat different view has been taken. Indeed the provision relating to service of summons contained in section 9 of the Ordinance, 2001 to be somewhat different from those in C.P.C. Inasmuch as service through all modes is sought to be simultaneously effected. Nevertheless the question whether this by itself is sufficient for holding substituted service valid without other methods having them resorted to needs to be examined.

4. It also needs to be considered that while a statute providing for a special procedure of trial in banking matters might be justifiable on the ground of reasonable classification; whether the same principle could be extended to section 9 relating merely to service of summons?

5. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted inter alia to examine the above contentions. Parties would be at liberty to file additional documents within three weeks whereafter the appeal may be fixed for hearing at an early date in Karachi whenever a bench consisting of three honourable.

Judges is available.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.