1. KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C. J.---This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 3-12-1970 by which the plaintiff-appellant's suit was decreed against Sardar Khan defendant alone but was dismissed against the other defendants- respondents.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the National Bank of Pakistan, Muzaffarabad brought a suit on the original side of the High Court against Sardar Khan and the legal representatives of the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan for recovery of Rs. 15,487.56 with 6 % future interest. Sardar Khan defendant bad entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-- Bank to take out a loan and the Bank had agreed to advance him a loan to the extent of Rs. 20,000. The late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan had allegedly executed a contract of guarantee Exh. P. D. In favour of the plaintiff-Bank for the payment of the loan advanced to Sardar Khan defendant. The learned Single Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit against Sardar Khan the principal debtor but dismissed the suit as against the legal representatives of the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan, the surety. The plaintiff -Bank has now come up in appeal before the Division Bench against the legal representa--tives of the surety praying that the decree be passed as against the legal representatives of the surety also to the extent of the assets, of the late surety, in their hands.
3. The learned Single Judge has given as many as seven reasons for dismissing the plaintiff's suit against the legal representa--tives of the surety. Learned counsel for the plaintiff---appellant has stated the facts of the case, cited the various documents relied upon by the plaintiff and taken us through the document of guarantee Exh. P. D. Learned counsel for the defendants-- respondents raised an objection that the contract of guarantee Exh. P. D. Alleged to have been executed by the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan as surety, had not been proved to have been executed by him.
4. It is agreed that the defendants-- respondents can support the decree which goes In their favour on other grounds also. The learned Single Judge has held that the execution of Exh. P. D. Is proved.
5. In spite of this, the defendants can show that the execution is not proved.
6. We have been referred to the statement of Khawaja Abdul Ghanl, Head Cashier, National Bank of Pakistan who appeared as the plaintiff's witness, to prove the execution of the agreement Exh. P. D.
7. And pronote Exh. P. E. Dated 8-4-64. The P. W. Stated:-- "Exhibit P. D. Extending over two leaves is the bond executed by late Raja Muhammad Harder Khan in favour of the Bank. He stood surety for the loan of Rs. 20,000 granted to Sardar Khan defendant.
8. Exh. P. E. Is the pronote dated 8-4-64 executed by Sardar Khan in favour of Raja Muhammad Haider Khan, on his turn endorsed it in favour of National Bank of Pakistan. This pronote is for the amount of Rs. 20,000 with interest at the rate of 2 % above the Bank rate with the minimum of 6 % per annum."
9. Now we have to see if this statement goes to prove the execution of Exhs. P. D. And P. E. By the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan.
10. Section 67, Evidence Act lays down as to how documents are to be proved and is reproduced below:-- "If a document is alleged to be signed or to have bee written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting."
11. Documents Exhs. P. D. And P. E. Are alleged to be signed by the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan.
12. The signature on these documents had to be proved in the handwriting of the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan. The witness does not state that the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan signed these documents in his presence or that the signatures are in the handwriting of the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan with whose signatures he is fully conversant. The witness does not even state that he was present at the time of the execution of these two documents Exhs. P. D. And P. E. He does not state even this much that he was an attesting witness to the documents Exhs. P. D.
13. And P. E. Besides the documents Exbs. p. D. And P. E. Are copies of some documents and do not bear any signatures at all. Therefore, the witness's statement that these two documents were executed by Raja Muhammad Haider Khan means nothing and is not worth the paper it is written on. We are constrained to hold that the documents Exhs. P. D. And P. E. Are not proved to have been executed by the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan. Therefore, the question of the liability of his legal representatives does not arise at all. The defendants, the legal representatives of the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan had denied having knowledge that the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan had executed any agreement or pronote in favour of the plaintiff-Bank to guarantee the return of the loan advanced to Sardar Khan defendant. In this circumstance it was necessary to prove the signatures of the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan having been appended to these documents Exhs. P. D. And P. E.
14. We bold that the execution of the documents Exhs. P. D.. And P. E. By the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan is not proved and no decree can be passed against his legal representatives. Having found that the execution of the documents Exhs. P, D. And P. E. Which form the care of the plaintiff's case, are not proved to have been executed by the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan we need not go into the legal question whether the late Raja Muhammad Haider Khan or his legal representa-- tives could be made liable for the payment of the loan advanced by the plaintiff-Bank to Sardar Khan when the plaintiff had been giving time to Sardar Khan for the return of the loan without the knowledge of Raja Muhammad Haider Khan. The question of the liability of the guarantor is, therefore, left open.
15. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order is made as to the costs of the appeal in the circumstances of the case.