' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 25-6-1997, the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs,25,000.- In the plaint it was stated that the respondent is doing business in Depalpur Bazar, Sahiwal. Appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs,1,31,307 against Messrs United Drug Agencies on 27-4-1992 before Judge Banking Court, Multan wherein he was impleaded as defendant No,6.
He was summoned and he put in appearance and filed an application for leave to defend the suit.
The case remained pending till 28-4-1997 and several dates of hearing as detailed in para.3 of the plaint were fixed. The case was then transferred to Judge Banking Court, Sahiwal where he was again summoned and next date of hearing is 25-6-1997. He has also filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of plaint. According to him he had never taken any loan from the appellant nor he stood guarantee and he had not executed any such document. He has suffered financial loss and mental agony because of the said malicious prosecution. The appellant contested the suit with the plea that he had stood guarantee and has been lawfully impleaded in the suit. The following issues were framed by the learned Judge Banking Court, Sahiwal: --
(1) Whether Ahmad Hassan ever stood guarantee for the loan advanced by the defendant-Bank in favour of the United Drug Agencies?
(2) Whether the plaintiff Ahmad Hassan intentionally put his false and fictitious signatures as a guarantor?
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit is liable to be dismissed?
(4) Whether the plaintiff suffered any loss as a defendant in the suit filed by the defendant-Bank against United Drug Agencies and others?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages from the defendant, If so, to what extent?
(6) Relief.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. The suit s decreed vide judgment and decree dated 8-10- 1997.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent being not a borrower or customer and matter having not arisen out of a finance arrangement, learned Banking Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. It has also been argued that the case for damages was not made out.
3. No one has turned up for the respondent despite calls.
4. We have gone through the records of the learned trial Court. It will be seen that the objection to the jurisdiction was not raised in the written statement and no issue was claimed. Apart from this, the Memo. Of appeal is also silent. However, we find from the reading of the impugned judgment that the objection was raised during the course of arguments and was dealt with in para.9 of the impugned judgment. Now we confronted the learned counsel as to what was the plea and case of his client, prompt rely is that the respondent stood guarantee in the matter of finance arrangement. To our mind, where primary question to be determined is as to whether or not the respondent stood guarantee and consequently was a borrower as defined in the then applicable banking laws, it is to be decided by a Banking Court and no other Courts. We, therefore, do not find any force in the said objection. So far as merits are concerned, there is no denial that the suit was filed as stated in the plaint. The respondent was summoned and he applied for leave to appear and to defend. The suit remained pending and was ultimately disposed of, of course, with nq finding on the said question. Now findings recorded. By the learned trial Court that respondent had not stood surety has not been seriously questioned. We have examined the evidence on record.
'DMA , Tariq Masood has stated that in the application for sanction of loan Exh.D.1 and sanction Advice Exh.D.2 name of Ahmad Hassan was mentioned as a guarantor. In his cross-examination he admitted that none of the two documents bear the signature of Ahmad Hassan, respondent. He has further stated that Ahmad Hassan never put his signatures anywhere in his presence. He further admitted that in the application complete address of Ahmad Hassan is not available. D.W.2, Muhammad Sadiq also gave a similar statement. Now Muhammad Sadiq, D.W.2 stated that Ahmad Hassan signed some document in his presence as guarantor. He stated that the application does not bear the signatures of the said witness. He further admitted that signatures on the application are Mehmood Hassan and not Ahmad Hassan and no other particulars are there. The respondent, of course, categorically denied having stood guarantee or having singed any of the said document.
5. We, therefore, do not find any error in the findings of the learned Judge Banking Court that the respondent had never stood guarantee in this matter. D.W.2 has also stated that United Drug Agencies has since repaid the loan.
6. We, therefore, find that the suit was filed maliciously against the respondent and the damages granted are also reasonable. R.F.A. Accordingly is dismissed. No order- as to costs.