' ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.--This appeal against the dicision of the learned Special Judge (Banking), Lahore, dated the 2nd May, 1982, recording dismissal of the appellant's suit for recovery of Rs.3,40,770.19 against the respondents arises out of the following circumstances. Messrs Kohistan Limited, respondent 1, opened account No. CD 3551 with the appellant, United Bank Limited, on the 24th July, 1965. The appellant agreed to extend overdraft facility to respondent 1. Respondents 3 and 4 stood guarantee to the extent of Rs.7,50,000.00 to the amount overdrawn by respondent 1 in its account. Each of respondents 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 executed letters of guarantee undertaking the liability to liquidate by repayment the overdrawn amount in respondent l's account to the limit of Rs.25,000.00.
2. On the 5th February, 1970, The Chief Martial Law Administrator promulgated Martial Law Regulation No.63 dissolving the Board of Directors of respondent 1 and making provisions for appointment of an Administrator for taking over the management of the affairs of respondent 1 and its eventual dissolution. By paragraph 4 of the Regulation all properties, funds, dues which immediately before the promulgation of the regulation were vested in or were realizable by the respondent or its Board of Directors, were vested in and were made realizable by the Administrator and all liabilities which, immediately before the promulgation of the Regulation were enforceable against respondent 1 or its Board of Directors were assumed by and were made enforceable against the Administrator. Paragraph 9 of the regulation giving powers to the Administrator to deal with the property of respondent 1 and after settling the liabilities to dissolve respondent 1 runs as under,- 9.(i) The Administrator may at any time sell or transfer to any person, or any association of persons, the Daily Kohistan, the Kohistan Press and the other property vested in him under this Regulation, on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed to by the Administrator and such person or association of persons.
(ii) The proceeds of the sale or transfer under sub-paragraph (i) shall, in the first instance, be applied to satisfy the liablities against, or incurred by, the Administrator in pursuance of the provisions of this Regulation, and the balance of such proceeds together with such other funds as may be vested in the Administrator for the purpose of this Regulation shall be paid to the share- holders of the Kohistan Limited in proportion to the value of the shares held by them therein.
(iii) Upon the completion of the proceedings under sub-paragraph (ii), the Administrator shall, by notification in the official Gazette, dissolve the Kohistan Limited and thereupon Kohistan Limited shall stand dissolved."
3. The Administrator after collecting assets, disposing of the properties, inviting claims against and settling the liabilities of respondent 1, passed order on the 6th August, 1970, which was published in the Punjab Gazette on the 7th August, 1970, dissolving respondent 1. The contents of the order are reproduced below,- "Whereas the Administrator, appointed under paragraph 3 of Martial Law Regulation No.63 has,-
(i) received and collected all sums and moneys payable to 'Kohistan Limited', a private company with limited liabilities having its registered Office at 114-McLeod Road, Lahore;
(ii) sold all properties and assets thereof, including the title and goodwill of 'Daily Kohistan' published from Lahore, Rawalpindi and Multan; and
(iii) so far as possible, paid; discharged and satisfied all valid claims and liabilities against 'Kohistan Limited', from the sums, moneys, sale proceeds and funds and no amount or funds vesting in him, have been left for distribution amongst its shareholders; ' Now, therefore, the Administrator in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of paragraph 9 of Martial Law Regulation 63, hereby dissolve the 'Kohistan Limited', 114-McLeod Road, Lahore."
4. The appellant did not file claim regarding the outstanding amount of loan against respondent 1 with the Administrator. It filed suit on the 1st September, 1972, for recovery of the outstanding loan amounting to Rs.3,40,770.19. The dissolution of respondent 1 by the Administrator under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 63 was pleaded as defence to the appellant's suit by the respondents and the same was accepted by the learned trial Court which dismissed the suit.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that despite the fact that respondent 1, in consequence of its dissolution, was not answerable for payment of loan, its guarantors, namely, respondents 2 to 8, were liable to make payment to the limit of their liability. It is difficult to appreciate the learned counsel's argument. The dissolution of respondent 1 was akin to its complete winding up. The learned counsel conceded that after winding up of a company its creditors could not sue the guarantors. Similar is the situation here. The provisions of Martial Law Regulation 63 were to hold swa y over those of the law of contract. The appellant, despite notice given by the Administrator, failed to register its claim of outstanding debt against respondent 1. It instituted suit more than two years after respondent 1 had been completely dissolved. Therefore, its guarantors could not be sued in respect of respondent l's liability. The impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is unexceptionable and needs no interference. This appeal is consequently dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.