' MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.--- This appeal under section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 calls in question the judgment and decree, dated 9-10-1997 of the Banking Court-I, Lahore, whereby the respondent-Bank's suit for the recovery of Rs,4,17,737 was decreed against the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 4.
2. In the suit filed by the respondent-Bank, it was averred that at the request of the defendants financial facilities had been offorded to Messrs Khyber Carpets Limited, respondent No,2 herein, which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. In order to secure the loan, various documents had been executed by the defendants in the suit including the present appellant, who had guaranteed the repayment of loan by executing a letter of guarantee.
3. The appellant applied for the grant of leave to appear and defend the suit on 3-7-1986 in which it was claimed that the appellant was Director in the name only and had resigned from that position and surrendered the shares held by her. It was further stated in the application that the signatures on the letter of acknowledgment and the letter of guarantee were not those of appellant and the two documents have been forged and fabricated. This application of the appellant was dismissed on 28-5-1997 and ultimately the suit was decreed against all the defendants including the appellant on 9-10-1997.
4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has reitrated that the appellant had never furnished guarantee for repayment of loan and her signatures on the letter of guarantee and acknowledgment had been forged and fabricated. It has been argued that in the same circumstances, the appellant's application for leave to appear and defend the suit should have been accepted.
5. We are not impressed by this contention of the learned counsel. The bare denial of signatures on the letter of guarantee without any prima facie proof could not furnish a ground for the grant of leave to appear and defend the suit. If the arguments of the learned counsel that in all cases, where signatures on the documents are denied, leave must be granted is accepted, it would result in defeating the very purpose for which the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 has been promulgated. Admittedly the account was opened by the appellant alongwith others and the account opening form bears her signatures. We ourselves have compared the signatures of the appellant with the other document namely, account opening form and other documents which were executed at the time of opening account and find that the signatures on the disputed documents are identical to the signatures on the letter of guarantee.
6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of American Express Bank Ltd. v. Adamjee Industries Ltd. (1995 CLC 880) for the proposition that once the signatures on the documents are denied the Court should grant leave to appear and defend the suit. We have already observed that mere denial of signatures on the documents is not sufficient ground for the grant of leave unless it is prima facie shown that the documents had been forged and fabricated. The reliance of the learned counsel on the case cited above is misplaced inasmuch as what was observed by the Sindh High Court was that on comparison of signatures it appeared prima facie that the signatures on the letter of guarantee by defendant No,6 does not match her signatures on the Wakalatnama or the affidavit. The comparison in the present case with the signatures on the account opening form shows that the same are absolutely identical with the signatures on the other documents like account opening form, resolution of the Board of Directors, etc. In the given circumstances, the Trail Court was justified in refusing to grant leave to appear and defend the suit to the appellant.
' In view of what has been said above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.