The appellant is guarantor for the redemption of the loan availed by respondent No,2 from respondent No,
1. The only point canvassed before us was that the learned Banking Court discriminated the appellant by refusing the leave to defend the suit when in similar circumstances leave was granted when respondent No,1 had also initiated criminal proceedings. Civil liability and criminal liability are d is met and separate, each case is to be dealt with on its facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the guarantee executed by the appellant is not disputed. In these circumstances no contentions point of fact and law was raised. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for leave to defend and granted the decree in favour of the respondent No, 1 . Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.