Your legal concepts and terminology are all mixed up. There are grounds in contract law for the cancellation (or rescission) of contracts or other instruments, but they have little or nothing to do with issues revolving around standing to sue. I assume the Rule 17(a) you reference is one of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - there are other "Rules 17A" including a fairly commonly litigated SEC Rule 17A.
I also fail to understand the concept of a "lender" who supposedly "did not lend any money" but "created the funds using the signature of the borrower." This sounds like hokum to me. If the borrower's requested loan got funded, the borrower is obligated to make payments to the lender, irrespective of how the funds were "created."
A court might entertain the question of whether the lender is the real party in interest, but only upon a motion challenging same in the context of a filed lawsuit.
My hunch without reviewing any documents or interviewing anyone is that you are grasping at straws. There are a zillion bogus theories floating around in the rumor world as to how lenders can be prevented from asserting remedies for failure of a borrower to pay. Very few of them hold up in court. The lenders have expensive lawyers and then had them from well before the paperwork you signed was drawn up.
