' This appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-7-2005 and 24-7-2005 respectively passed by Banking Court No,1 at Karachi in Suit No,607 of 2003. Against the same judgment another appeal being Appeal No,47 of 2005 was preferred by respondents Nos,3 to 6, which was dismissed in limine vide order of this Court dated. 30-8-2005, except for the sum of Rs,28,980 for which pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents in that appeal. Today when 1st Appeal No,47 of 2005 came up for hearing before us with reference to such limited controversy, highlighted in order dated 30-8- 2005, we have dismissed the same in limine as per separate order passed in that appeal.
2. Mr. Mukhtiar Ahmed, learned counsel for appellants realizing this position has frankly conceded that appellants Nos.1 to 4 have no case to pursue this appeal as the judgment passed in 1st Appeal No,47 of 2005 dated 30-8-2005 read with order dated 31-8-2006 is squarely applicable to their case. However, with reference to the position of appellant No,5. Mst. Tajunissa Begum, who is now dead and represented through her daughter Musrat Munir, he contended that the impugned judgment against her is unjustified inasmuch as she was not the original borrower but had executed some documents in favour of respondent No,1 Bank to secure their payment from other appellants and respondents Nos.2 to 6. He made reference to registered Mortgage Deed dated 13- 9-1992. Personal Guarantee dated 3-9-1992 and Memorandum of Deposit of title Deed which were executed by appellant No,5, Mst. Tajunissa and contended that her liability for repayment of the decretal amount should have been restricted only to the extent of liability created on her through these three documents and nothing beyond that.
3. Mr. Badar Alam, learned counsel for respondent No,1 initially insisted that the impugned judgment and decree passed against appellant No,5 is binding on her up to the maximum limit of decretal amount, but he could not controvert the submissions of Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed that the liability of appellant No,5 will be confined only to the extent of liability created against her through the execution of these three documents. This being the position, the impugned judgment and decree can be executed against appellant No,5 only to the extent of her liability in view of the above-referred three documents.
4. With the above observations, this appeal, otherwise having no merits, is dismissed in limine along with the listed-application.