' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The appellants are the defendants/judgment-debtors of a suit for the recovery brought by the respondent-Bank inter alia against them; no submission has been made before us challenging the judgment and decree for the other appellants, except No,5. Regarding him it is stated that he, in the plaint, is mentioned to be one of the directors of the company having furnished his personal guarantee. Along with the suit, certain documents have been filed showing his position as the share-holder/Director of the borrower Company and about the execution and furnishing of his noted guarantee. The appellant No,1 independently filed his leave application, which has been disallowed by the learned Banking Judge and the judgment and decree dated 27- 5-2002 has been passed against him as well. Hence, this appeal.
2. The learned Banking Judge in categorical terms has refuted the claim of appellant No,1 in which he has simply denied his status as the director and the shareholder as also that no personal guarantee was executed by him. The learned Judge observes that the requisite record of the Registrar of Companies envisages that appellant No,1 is one of the sponsor Directors of the Company and also filed statutory returns in the nature of Form 10.
3. When questioned, the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that as per record, the said appellant is the shareholder and the director, but his submission is, that a fraud has been committed by the management of the company (the principal borrower), who are closely related to him. But when further asked, it is admitted that no remedy either civil or criminal till to date has been availed by appellant No,1 to challenge his status of being a shareholder or a director of the Company against the management for the alleged fraud. Therefore, mere bald allegation in this behalf and evasive denial of non-execution of the personal guarantee by itself is no plausible defence within the parameters of the law.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the judgments reported as Mst. Riffat Jehan and another v. Habib Bank Limited and 10 others 2005 PLD 941 and Kamran Zali v. Messrs Union Bank Limited 2002 CLD 876 has argued that the Court should have referred the matter to the handwriting expert, rather than examining the signatures itself; suffice it to say that the Court has not made any such exercise, therefore, the case does not come within the ambit of 2005 CLD 941; regarding the other argument that the matter should have been referred to the expert, it may be mentioned that in the attending circumstances of the case, it was not required especially, when in the normal course of financing, it is the policy and the banking practice that all the directors are supposed to provide their guarantees and admittedly as per the record of the Registrar of the Companies, he has that status.
' In the light of above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.