1. - The only point involved in the present regular first appeal is as to whether the defendant No. 2 Giriraj Prasad Mittal, who is respondent herein, who stood guarantor of principal borrower defendant No. 1 Subedar Santokh Singh is jointly liable for dues payable by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff-Bank and trial Court committed an illegality while deciding issue No. 5 whereby it has been held that defendant No. 2 did not execute Ex. 9 deed of guarantee.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 91,749.05/- against defendants No. 1 to 3 namely Subedar Santokh Singh, Giriraj Prasad Mittal and Sardar Manak Singh. The defendant No. 1 Santokh Singh was the principal borrower and defendants No. 2 and 3 stood sureties for him. The defendant No. 2 filed his written- statement, wherein it was stated that his signatures were got on some blank form by Bank Manager, and he was not aware as to whether he is guarantor or not. The trial Court framed issue No. 5 as to whether the defendants No. 2 and 3 executed the guarantee deeds, as alleged in paras No. 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint. The trial Court decided issue No. 5 in fa