' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-5-2008 whereby the learned .Judge Banking Court Sargodha dismissed the application of the appellant for leave to defend the suit and decreed the suit against him.
2. Facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for recovery against the appellant and respondent No,2. It was contended in the plaint that respondent No,2 has obtained finance by way of lease and such finance had been secured through inter alia personal guarantee of the appellant. Default was alleged and on the basis whereof suit for recovery was filed. Application for leave to defend the suit was filed by the appellant which was dismissed and consequently the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree impugned dated 13-5-2008.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had never signed a guarantee in favour of respondent No,1 and in view of his denial, leave should have been granted and the matter decided after recording the evidence.
4. Said assertion has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent No, 1.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant did not deny his signature on the document/guarantee in question. In fact, it is the case of the appellant that the appellant was only asked to witness the execution of one of the lease documents. Such is clearly stated in para 2 of the appeal.
6. We have examined the document in question i,e,, the guarantee and indemnity. It bears the signatures of the appellant, which has been admitted. The only case put forward was that such signatures had been obtained as a witness. It has been noticed that there is a separate part of the document specifically identified for signature of witnesses and two signatures have appeared there at. While the signatures admitted by the appellant are on a place identified for the executants viz. The guarantor. The appellant is not an illiterate person and in fact he is stated to be a doctor by profession. In this view of the matter, no defence worthy of trial was put forward, hence, the application for leave to defend the suit was rightly dismissed and the trial Court rightly decreed the suit. No case for interference and invalidation thereof is made out. Dismissed accordingly.