Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.2008 rendered by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Udham Singh Nagar, adjudicating the Civil Suit No.2 of 2005 titled as ‘Nainital Almora Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Gurmukh Singh and three others’. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-bank but affirmed its right to recover the debt along with the incurred interest out of the security mortgaged with it.

2. In brief, the facts, as revealed from the pleadings and highlighted during the course of arguments of learned Counsel for the parties, are that one Gurjeet Singh (a Bachelor) founded a Poultry /Broiler Farm in Village Ikghara (Vikrampur), Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. From time to time, he took loans from the bank-plaintiff. Firstly, on 5.1.2002, a sum of Rs.3.15 lakh was borrowed and further to advance such Farm, on 12.10.2002, additional sum of Rs.1.00 lakh was taken as loan. He could not maintain his loan account in discipline which resulted into the outstanding of Rs.5,70,851/- due against him; the repeated demands also could not yield any result, so the Bank was constrained to institute the original suit, as stated above.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that such loan was advanced by the Bank against the equitable mortgage created by the borrower –Gurjeet Singh on 5.1.2002 on the land Khasra No.114 having area 0.379 hectare, whereof he was the owner. On 10.12.2002 i.e. after almost eleven months, he executed a registered sale deed of such land in favour of one Pyara Singh, a resident of the same village, who though was not impleaded as defendant in the suit, but was added as respondent no.5 while filing the appeal.

4. It has vehemently been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Bank was vigilant enough to make evaluation of the land in question, which as per the Valuer of such Bank, was assessed to be of Rs.15.47 lakh before such loan could be sanctioned.

5. That apart, Gurmukh Singh (father of borrower) moved an application on 22.11.2004 to the institution requesting for some time to repay the same but after moving the same, he did not pay any heed.

6. Initially, the suit proceeded ex parte because the written statement could not be filed by any of the defendants despite due service on them but by the interference of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No.1441 of 2005, the defendants could present their written statements and the suit was adjudicated, as aforementioned. That borrowing deed was signed by two guarantors Jagdish Singh and Jagjit Singh, however, in their written statements, they have denied their signatures on such document. At the same time, Gurmukh Singh (defendant no.1), father of borrower, has pleaded that since he did not inherit any property of his son, therefore, he cannot be held responsible to bear any liability of his son.

7. Be that as it may, I find that the application, if any, moved by Mr. Gurmukh Singh on 22.11.2004, pertaining to the dispute is irrelevant, therefore, the veracity of moving the same is not germane in controversy. But at the same time, the guarantors of such loan could not have been redeemed from the liability, provided the bank was able to prove their signatures/thumb impressions on the deed.

8. The contention on behalf of the appellant, that the signatures of guarantor Jagjit Singh on the Vakalatnama filed in the said writ petition are similar to those which he made in the deed, is not acceptable for the simple reason that this Court is not supposed to decree the suit merely by making its own assessment as regards the resemblance of signatures, rather it is to be proved by the Bank in its testimony before the Trial Judge, which has not been done. Simply, the statement of the Branch Manager of the Bank and further his denial though a suggestion in this regard, is not sufficient to infer that the signatures of guarantors were genuine on the deed. I find that the bank has been grossly reck