STATE BANK OF INDIA v. O. P. GUPTA — 1979 DIGILAW 43 (DEL)

Sultan Singh ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 52237. 51 paise. The plaintiff granted following cash credited facilities to defendant No. 1 :- (a) Cash Credited Lown for working Capital Rs. 28000. 00 (b) Cash Credited Loan for Machinery. Rs. 9000. 00 (c) Cash Credit Rs. 10000. 00 ( 2 ) ON 9th May, 1973, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 delivered to and deposited with the plaintiff the title deeds in respect of the House Property bearing No. 87, Dholi Piao, Mathura with intent to create a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff as collateral security for advances made or to be made. Again on 26th July, 1973 defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 further delivered to and deposited with the plaintiff title deeds in respect of the building bearing Municipal Serial No. 275, Dholi Piao Mathura, measuring 308 square yards with intent to create a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff as Collateral Security thereof for advances made or to be made. The defendant No, 1 executed the agreement of Medium Term Loan to the extent of Rs. 28000. 00 and a demand promissory note for Rs. 28,100. 00 in favour of defendants Nos. 2,4, 5 and 6, on 30th July, 197j. Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 executed in favour of the plaintiff an Agreement of Guarantee dated 30th July, 1973 and endorsed the said Demand Promissory Note dated 30th July, 1973 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 executed another agreement for Medium Term Loan against pledge of moveable machinery on 4th Oct. 1973 to the extent of Rs. 9200. 00 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 6. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 endorsed this Demand Promisory Note in favour of the plaintiff. Further a demand promisory Note for Rs. 10,000. 00 and an agreement for hypothecation and guarantee was executed to the extent of Rs. 10,000. 00 by defendant No. 1 on 4th October, 1973. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 endorsed the said Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants 525 Nos. 2 to 6 also executed the agreement of guarantee dated 4th Oct. , 1973. Defendant No. 1 availed of the cash credit facilities from the plaintiff. The sum of Rs. 52. 237. 10,000. 00 by defendant No. 1 on 4th October, 1973. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 endorsed the said Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants 525 Nos. 2 to 6 also executed the agreement of guarantee dated 4th Oct. , 1973. Defendant No. 1 availed of the cash credit facilities from the plaintiff. The sum of Rs. 52. 237. 51 paise is due to the plaintiff by way of principal, interest and charges under the three cash credit facilities referred to above. This amount was transferred to the protested Bill Account on 29th July, 1976, The plaintiff claims decree against all the defendants for Rs. 52,237. 51 with customiry penal interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the suit till realisation, a preliminary decree for sale of the two immovable properties referred to above and situate at Mathura. Tne propsrties pledged with the plaintiff-Bank are fully detailed in Seh a and b attached to the plaint. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and pleading that the amount could not the repaid on account of heavy losses and want of money, that the defendants pledged the two properties at Mathura with the plaintiff-bank is also admitted. The other defendants did not file any written statement. Subsequently the defendants absented themselves. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff-bank has examined Shri A. S. Sharma, Branch Manager who has deposed in support of the case set in the plaint. ( 5 ) THE present suit is for the recovery of money by sale of the mortagage properties situate at Mathura. S; 16 of the Civil P. C. is ( 6 ) A suit for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage or recharge upon immovable property u/s 16 is to be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. Thus as the property is not situated within the jurisdiction of this court but is situated within the jurisdictison of this court but is situated at Mathura this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that under S. 120 of the Civil P. C. Ss. 16, 17 and 20 of the Civil P. C. are not applicable to the High Courts in exercise of the original civil jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that under S. 120 of the Civil P. C. Ss. 16, 17 and 20 of the Civil P. C. are not applicable to the High Courts in exercise of the original civil jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court in Suit No. 51 of 1968 in Re. State Bank, of India y, Himalayan Exporters by judgment dated 20th Nov. 1970 has held that Section 120 of the Code cannot be read to exclude the applicability of Ss. 16, 17, and 20 of the Code to this court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction It was observed that amendment introduced in the heading of Part IX and S. 116 of the Code by S. 14 of the Civil P. G. Amendment Act 2 of 1951 has the result of excluding the application of Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of the three High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay which were the only High Courts at that time (1951) exercising ordinary original Civil jurisdiction. The amendment was never contemplated to cover the case of future High Courts. This High Court was established by the Delhi High Court Act 25 of 1966. Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Civil P. C. in view of this Division Banch judgment are applicable to this Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. I, therefore, hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit under S. 16 of the Civil P. C. Accordingly. I direct the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the court having jurisdiction in the matter. There will be no order as to. costs.