' This appeal is directed against judgment/decree dated 15-3-2000 passed by learned Judge Banking Court No,1, Lahore. The plaintiff/respondent No,1 filed a suit on 21-4-1999 against defendants/respondents 2 and 3 and Ghulam Dastagir (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) for the recovery of Rs.3,89,501.00 with mark-up. It was averred that the defendants were sanctioned a small finance amounting to rupees three lacs vide sanction advice dated 13-11-1991, which was subsequently renewed by advices dated 17-4-1993, 10-11-1993 and 28-12-1994. The defendants in order to secure the loan executed and deposited the following documents in favour of the plaintiff- Bank:--
(1) Promissory Note
(2) Loan Agreement
(3) Letters of personal guarantees
(4) Letter of hypothecation
(5) Mortgage-Deed dated 11-12-1991
(6) Sale-deeds ' Ghulam Dastagir, defendant No,3 (predecessor-ininterest of the appellants) executed collateral mortgage deed dated 11-12-1991, in order to secure the loan. Despite repeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to make the repayments. The suit was resisted mainly on the ground that the aforementioned documents were forged. The learned Judge Banking Court dismissed the application for leave to appear and defend the suit and proceeded to decree the suit of the plaintiff against the respondents 2 and 3 and the appellants jointly and severally with costs.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that Ghulam Dastagir (predecessor-in- interest of the appellants) is alleged to have signed the collateral mortgage deed but the same has been prepared after the death of Ghulam Dastagir. The entire claim of the respondent-Bank is based upon fake and forged documents. Learned counsel referred to the death certificate of Ghulam Dastagir.
3. We have gone through the judgment of the Banking Court and perused the record. The plaint as well as the judgment of the trial Court show that the mortgage-deed was executed on 11-12-1991 when Ghulam Dastagir was alive. The order dated 25-5-1999 passed by the Judge Banking Court shows that Ghulam Dastagir (predecessorin-interest of the appellants)/defendant No,3, had refused to accept service through post on 11-5-1999. The record also shows that the defendants were served through newspapers i.e., daily "Nation" dated 30-4-1999 and daily "Nawa-e-Waqt" dated 13-5-1999. Thereafter he was proceeded ex parte. The order dated 17-7-1999 reveals that Ghulam Dastagir was reported to have died and the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 requested for bringing the legal heirs of defendant No,3 on record. The contention of the learned counsel that the mortgage-deed was prepared after the death of Ghulam Dastagir, deceased, goes by the board. The mortgage-deed was executed by him on 11-12-1991, whereas he reportedly died on 12-11-1995. The argument of the learned counsel that personal guarantee of Ghulam Dastagir, was prepared after his death, does not hold water. We have carefully examined the death certificate. It is not the certified copy of the death certificate issued by the Lahore Municipal Corporation. It is neither signed by the competent authority nor it bears the stamp of the Lahore Municipal Corporation. Similarly, it does not show on what date the applicant applied for the certificate and on what date copy was prepared and supplied to him as it is usual on the death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation. This document is a fake document and cannot be relied upon. At any rate, even if the personal guarantee is scored out of the security documents, the mortgage-deed dated 11-12-1991 on which date Ghulam Dastagir, was alive, still holds the field. The principal loanees according to the learned counsel for the appellants have not filed an appeal. The appellants alongwith respondents 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable.
4. For what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed in limine.