JUSTICE R. S. TRIPATHI, CHAIRPERSON., J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the judgment dated the 9th November, 2006 passed by D. R. T. , Lucknow in Transfer Application Case No. 30 of 2002 issuing a recovery certificate against defendant Nos. 1, 2/1 to 2/5, 3, 4/1, 5 and 6 for an amount of Rs. 40,44,051. 55 together with pendente lite and future interest till the realization of total amount. Briefly stated the facts of the present appeal are that an application for recovery of Rs. 40,44,051. 55 together with interest was filed by the respondent united Commercial Bank against the present appellant and others before the civil Judge, Mallihabad, Lucknow wherefrom it was transferred and registered at D. R. T. , Lucknow at T. A. 30 of 2002. Further facts in short of the case are that sri Nawal Kishore Vaid (now dead) was the Managing Director of the defendant no. 1 Keshaw Vanaspati Ltd. and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (now dead) were the Directors of the said defendant No. 1 along with defendant No. 6 as one of the Directors. The bank advanced the amount in question on the guarantee furnished by defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to the tune of Rs. 28. 00 lacs. For above advancement of amount, the guarantee was also furnished by one Chemical Construction company of Madras (supplier) issuing guarantee of the due payment of Usance bills to be drawn by the supplier in respect of the cost price. There were certain terms and conditions for the above payment. The defendant No. 1 failed to pay the amount in question. Consequently the supplier demanded for the payment and an amount of Rs. 22,23,520. 00 was paid by the bank till 29th April, 1976. The bank placed a demand on 22nd May, 1975, 2nd September, 1975 with the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. In the meantime on 5th December, 1973, 19th September, 1974, 15th March, 1975, 19th September, 1975 and 13th March, 1976 the defendant no. 7 on the request of defendant No. 1 allowed the loan of Rs. 18,10,264. The bank placed a demand on 22nd May, 1975, 2nd September, 1975 with the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. In the meantime on 5th December, 1973, 19th September, 1974, 15th March, 1975, 19th September, 1975 and 13th March, 1976 the defendant no. 7 on the request of defendant No. 1 allowed the loan of Rs. 18,10,264. 00 to defendant No. 1 against the security of mortgage over the said immovable properties which are detailed in para 8 of the plaint as well as over the plant and machinery mentioned in the para 8-B of the plaint executing registered deed of hypothecation dated 18th February, 1971 executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant No. 7. ( 2 ) THE bank, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 7 on 23rd May, 1973 entered into a tripartite agreement to allow a parri passu charge on the said mortgaged properties which were given in para 8 of the plaint. The bank on the request of the defendants 1 to 6 had further agreed to allow a cash credit in the form of draft facilities to the extent of Rs. 15. 00 lacs to defendant No. 1 on certain rate of interest with detailed terms and conditions just provided in the agreement. Necessary documents were got executed, the bank asked for the amount due but it was not paid, thereafter above suit was filed for recovery. ( 3 ) ONLY the defendant Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 filed their written statement denying the case of the bank. They contested the claim of recovery on various grounds but subsequently the defendants 6 and 7 remained in contest whereas rest of the defendants absented. The case proceeded ex parte against defendant nos. 4 and 5 also. The present appeal has been preferred by defendant No. 6 who had filed his written statement before the D. R. T. asserting therein that he had not executed any personal guarantee. According to him as the company had gone into liquidation, the suit was not maintainable for non-impleadment of official liquidator who had been appointed subsequently. He further denied his liability. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal after framing issues, proceeded to consider the evidence filed by parties and concluded by pronouncing the judgment for recovery of Rs. 40,44,051. 55 along with interest. This judgment is under challenge in this appeal. He further denied his liability. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal after framing issues, proceeded to consider the evidence filed by parties and concluded by pronouncing the judgment for recovery of Rs. 40,44,051. 55 along with interest. This judgment is under challenge in this appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant and Counsel for the respondent bank have been heard at length and the record has been perused carefully. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the defendant No. 6 i. e. , present appellant has vehemently argued that the defendant No. 6 was one of the Directors of the defendant No. 1 company but he was a sleeping Director and not a working director. He has drawn the attention of this Tribunal towards the pleadings and contents in the plaint of Regular Suit No. 85 of 1976. In para 3 and also in para 7 are the contents of same plaint at page 24 of memo of appeal. It has been pointed out along with para 7 (iii) of the plaint, by learned Counsel for the appellant that at page 27 of memo of appeal averment for parri passu charge on the mortgaged properties is given and in view of this plea and contents of 12 of the above plaint (page 27 of the memo of appeal) defendant no. 6 has no concern with the tripartite agreement dated 23rd May, 1973. Attention of this Tribunal has also been drawn towards para 10, paras 12, 13, 21, 31, 32 and 34 of the above plaint and it is argued from the side of the appellant that once property mortgaged was sold the remaining amount said to be due cannot be recovered from the defendant No. 6. In this connection it is also argued that before the Court of additional Civil Judge IVth, Lucknow in R. S. No. 85 of 1976, the statement of ghanshyam Dass Chandwani, Chief Vigilance Officer of the respondent bank was recorded and in this statement it has been admitted by the above witness that the property in question said to have been mortgaged was auctioned. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this tribunal towards the statement of P. W. 2 recorded before the Additional Civil judge, IVth, Lucknow to show that the liquidation proceedings had already started and the matter relating to these proceedings were pending before the honble High Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this tribunal towards the statement of P. W. 2 recorded before the Additional Civil judge, IVth, Lucknow to show that the liquidation proceedings had already started and the matter relating to these proceedings were pending before the honble High Court. It is also pointed out that before the Court of Additional civil Judge IVth, Lucknow witness P. W. 2 Zonal Manager of the respondent bank at page 67 of his this statement has admitted that the signatures of the present appellant were obtained when blank columns of the printed form of guarantee were not even filled in. In the light of these, it is argued from the side of the appellant that the finding recorded by the D. R. T. , is absolutely unjust and improper because the appellant could not know the contents of the deed of guarantee and the proceeding in the form of liquidation and sale of the mortgaged property have already concluded. Against these submissions, from the side of the respondent bank the argument is that on the original record the deed of guarantee is available; this Tribunal has perused this paper. Counsel for the bank has argued that the appellant signed this document of deed of guarantee in his personal capacity and not as the Director. It is argued from the side of the bank that the defendant No. 6 i. e. , the appellant was not at all sleeping director as there is no material to prove this fact and no document was blank when it was got signed and executed. It is admitted fact to the bank also that the property mortgaged has been sold on the basis of the recovery certificate and if the total amount has not been paid or satisfied from the sale of the property, the bank has right to proceed against the personal property of the guarantor on the basis of the above guarantee deed as the guarantor signed the deed of guarantee in his personal capacity and not as Director. Having considered the factum of admission of signatures on the guarantee deed said to have been executed by the appellant-defendant No. 6 and taking into account the views expressed in the ruling P. Talamalai Chetty v. Rathinasamy, 1998 2 BJ 321, wherein Honble Madras High Court while dealing with the question of admissibility of promissory note which was said to have been signed when it was blank, the observation that the suit ought to have been decreed as the holder had the authority to complete the instrument vary ruling the Honble Madras High Court had relied upon Chidambaram v. P. T. Ponnusamys case, 1995 2 LW 719. ( 6 ) MOREOVER after admission of signature by defendant No. 6 he cannot say that deed was not executed by him as he is an educated responsible person known as Director of defendant No. 1. ( 7 ) IN the light of above ruling and taking into account the fact from the documents available on the record it is established that the appellant took guarantee in his personal capacity and not as a Director of the principal borrower company, the bank has every right to proceed for the recovery of balance from the personal property of the appellant. ( 8 ) THE result of above discussions is that this appeal has no force and deserves dismissal. ORDER the appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties at the earliest. Appeal Dismissed. .