SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Suit instituted by the appellant-Bank for the recovery of a stated amount was decreed by the Chairman Banking Tribunal No.1, Faisalabad on 5-11-1996. This appeal has been filed by the decree-holderBank that the suit was wrongly dismissed by the Court against defendant No.3.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard whereas the respondents are not represented.
3. On consideration of the material on the record we observe that the learned Chairman, Banking Tribunal by taking note of stance of defendant No.3 that no documents whatsoever had been executed/signed by him, recorded finding that it was defendant No.2, who was beneficiary of the finances and defendant No.3 had nothing to do with any transaction. On comparison of signature of defendant No.3 it was found that there was absolutely no resemblance of his signature with the letter of guarantee. It was thus that he took the view that no liability could be created qua defendant No.3. The suit was accordingly decreed against the defendants except defendant No.3 and attachment order of his property was also vacated. This is a finding of fact to which no exception is possible in the circumstances. During the course of hearing of this appeal, we asked the learned counsel as to the outcome of execution of the decree which was passed in the year, 1996 and are surprised to know that execution thereof has not been sought till now, although there was no restraint order by this Court. Admittedly there was other property mortgaged with the Bank which could be proceeded against for the recovery of the decretal amount. We, however, refrain from making any further comment except to observe that this appeal in the circumstances is bereft of any merit, which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.