MUHAMMAD ALI versus BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
Application under section 9 (5) and 12 against the principal debtor and guarantor guarantor for rejecting such order under which they were not issued summons. That he learned of the order after his arrest. And that there was no circulation of newspapers in their area, the summons issued by the registered post and the property report issued by the divisional police officer were not available. The summons was served on the defendants by publication in two newspapers on record. Was imposed because the services had a regular effect on the defendants. By publishing, they did not have to issue further notices. Guarantor did not deny his address, but the reporting agency's reporting of warrants issued in the process of processing by the respondents Avoidance was shown. 12 4 2008, while the bailiffs filed such application on 28 4 2009 after their arrest on 24 7 2009, the Guarantor failed to appear in court for service by publication at the relevant time. Subsequently, according to his entry, the guarantor learned of the injunction 24 7 2009, when he was arrested, the guarantor filed his application 21 days later without giving any explanation or explanation for the delay. His refusal to refrain from serving the court proceedings by the court showed nothing in the record that the bank had committed fraud with Guarantor. What is the reason that the Guarantor failed to approach the court within the time period provided and was not properly presented in such circumstances.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
