' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA. J.---This appeal impugns the judgment and decree, dated 1-2-1996 passed by the learned Banking Tribunal No,1, Faisalabad.
2. The facts of this case are straightforward. NDFC appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs,4,02,80,298.35. Messrs Sahi Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited respondent No,5 was sued in its capacity as the borrower/principal-debtor, while the respondents Nos,1 to 4 were arrayed as defendants being guarantors to secure the liability owed to N.D.F.C. By Sahi Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited.
3. By means of the impugned judgment, a decree, as prayed for, was passed against Sahi Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited. However, the claim of NDFC against respondents Nos,1 to 4, on the basis of the personal guarantees executed by them, was not allowed. The reason given by the learned Banking Tribunal for disallowing the claim against the guarantors has been noted in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment. The relevant part of the said paragraph is reproduced as under:-- "During the course of argument that as the plaintiff has got executed supplementary agreement relating to these finances, therefore, the alleged guarantors i,e, defendants Nos,2 to 5 are not liable and responsible to pay any amount on the basis of these supplementary agreements, and the provisions of. The agreement could not be invoked against the guarantors i,e, defendants Nos, 2 to 5 as this is against the provision of the Contract Act."
4. Learned counsel for NDFC has pointed out that the learned Banking Tribunal fell in error because the record shows that the respondents Nos,1 to 4 had executed personal guarantees to secure even the supplemental agreements, dated 22-2-1993 and 22-3-1993 respectively. Furthermore, the third financing facility, dated 18-1-1992, which was allowed to Sahi Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited, was also secured by a personal guarantee executed by the aforesaid respondents Nos,1 to 4.
5. We have examined the guarantees executed by the aforesaid respondents and note that these guarantees were very much part of the record available to the learned Banking Tribunal but were overlooked by the said Tribunal. In these circumstances, we find no justification whatsoever for the failure of the Banking Tribunal to pass a decree against respondents Nos,1 to 4 as prayed for in the plaint filed by NDFC. In these circumstances, a decree as prayed for, is passed against the said respondents Nos,1 to 4 also.