JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this appeal filed by the Punjab National Bank, Jodhpur Branch, Jodhpur, (the appellant) are as under : 2. The appellant had filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, with the allegation that Mr. Girdharilal Kakkad (the deceased), who was the father of respondents No. 1 to 7 and the husband of respondent No. 8 had borrowed from the appellant, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for installation of Kirloskar Pump set at his well in the fields and had agreed to repay the amount with interest, as specified in the agreement executed between the parties. It has also been pleaded that the deceased mortgaged his agricultural land and executed promissory note on the same date, when he executed the agreement evidencing the loan and that the suit amount was due to the appellant from the deceased, after adjusting the sum already paid in his debt account at the time of the institution of the suit. It was alleged that the deceased having died, the respondents No. 1 to 8, who are his L.Rs. were, liable to pay the amount to the appellant. In these circumstances, it was prayed that the money decree for the suit amount, with pendente-lite and future interest at the agreed rate, be passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondents, with costs and in case the amount is not paid, the mortgage property, i.e. the agricultural land and the Machine and Pump sets, which were also hypothicated with the appellant Bank, be also sold for realisation of the amount and if the sale proceeds are not found sufficient, the decree be executed for recovering the balance amount. The suit was contested on the ground, inter alia, that Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the matter could be decided only by the Revenue Court. 3. The suit was contested on the ground, inter alia, that Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the matter could be decided only by the Revenue Court. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the issues in regard to the authority of the person who had instituted the suit; in regard to the amount of loan taken by the deceased; in regard to the validity of mortgage of agricultural land; and in regard to the hypothication of the Pumping set; in regard to the amount due from deceased and in regard to the interest payable on the said amount, besides framing issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the suit. 4. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial court decided all the issues on merits in favour of the appellant. On the basis of the decision of this Court in case of Moti Bhai v. Bank of Baroda, Civil Revision No. 320/1978 , decided on February 15, 1979, it was held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The prayer of the appellant made in an application under Order 23 for converting the suit to one of simple money decree, was also declined on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. In view of the finding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, the learned trial court vide its order/judgement dated 28.8.80, directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, for being presented to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. L.R. Calla, for the appellant, Mr. Bhansali for respondent No. 1 and have also perused the record of the case. The respondent No. 2 to 7 did not care to appear despite service and as such, I did not have the advantage of hearing any one on their behalf. 6. Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the decision in Moti Bhai's case (supra) has since been set aside, by the Supreme Court, and as such, this appeal should be accepted. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reported in 1985 (1) WLN, 272. 6. Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the decision in Moti Bhai's case (supra) has since been set aside, by the Supreme Court, and as such, this appeal should be accepted. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reported in 1985 (1) WLN, 272. While dealing with the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the case of mortgage of agricultural land for taking loan from a Bank, whose ordinary business was to advance loans, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, did not take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for deciding a suit for recovery of the loan advanced to an agriculturist, even though the agricultural land has been mortgaged. The decision in Moti Bhai's case (supra) was, thus, set aside. 7. Mr. Bhansali, the learned counsel for the respondent has sought to distinguish the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that in the said case, the land was mortgaged by way of collateral security, whereas in the present case the collateral security was only over the promissory note and not the land. I am unable to accept his contention. The documents of loan were executed and as noted above, an agreement was signed by the parties, where under the loan amount was advanced and the deceased agreed to pay the same with interest. The mortgage of the land as well as the promissory note, in these circumstances, would be collateral security and no distinction can be drawn in this case to take away the impact of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moti Bhai's case. 8. Consequently, the appeal is accepted, the order of the learned trial court, returning the plaint is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial court for disposing of the suit according to law in the light of its findings already recorded on the issues on merits. 9. The respondent No. 1, who has contested this appeal, will pay costs of this appeal to the appellant. 10. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, on November 21, 1988. The file of the learned trial court be sent back immediately so as to reach the learned trial court in later than November 19, 1988.Appeal allowed and case remanded to trial court. *******