Find a Lawyer

NASEEM ULLAH KHAN versus UNITED BANK LIMNED

Section (()) and the former party decree, rejecting the application by the defendants / lenders to the process of service stated that when a lawsuit was filed to recover the money, So he was not staying at the address that was issued, it is alleged that the lender bank was well aware of his new address and had deliberately tried to sue the previous address. The request for a separation of the order from was dropped. 3) The Banking Companies (Loans, Progress, Credit and Finance) Act of 1997 (Applied) was resorted to and the respondent's services were found at the address which he himself provided to the lending bank and The loan was mentioned in the documentation. The defendant was served at his last known address and nothing was on record to show that the lending bank was ever informed of the change in his address in view of the principle that In The debtor must see that the creditors / respondents had the responsibility to inform the bank of the change in their address but such obligation was not excluded by the respondent's expulsion and H.P. Lack of such information was delayed due to the lack of necessary information about the application for condolence, so rightly so Seventh \ r \ n \ r \ n ask a advocate free from Jhudo lawyer