JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the order dated 4.8.1993 passed by the learned trial Court in a Money Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1, whereby an application filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendants that the suit is not covered by the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands rejected. 2. Respondent no. 1, who is the plaintiff, has filed a simple Money Suit for the recovery of Rs. 58,441 /- from the petitioner-defendants and in that suit, the petitioners made an application that the suit was not covered by the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was not a simple Money Suit only. The plaintiff had prayed for the sale of the mortgaged property and also for the sale of other movable property that stands hypothecated with the plaintiff. Such a suit according to the plaintiff would be filed strictly under the provisions of Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the present suit was not maintainable. The learned trial Court has rejected the application and hence this revision. 3. Mr. K.L. Jasmatia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit is not a simple Money Suit and cannot be tried summarily. The learned counsel has taken me through the title of the suit, the prayer portion as well as para 17 (KH). The contention of Mr. Jasmatia is that since there is a prayer for sale of the property, relief in the summary manner cannot be granted and thus the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in that manner. The learned counsel further submits that a preliminary decree directing the defendants to pay the amount has to be passed and then a final decree and thereafter sale proceedings. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents, in reply, states that no fault could be found with the impugned order and the Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit in a summary manner as prescribed in Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have also been taken through the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 of the plaint. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the order passed by the learned trial Court is perfectly just and proper. I have also been taken through the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 of the plaint. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the order passed by the learned trial Court is perfectly just and proper. It is too well known that the pleadings have to be read as a whole and no particular portion of it should be read in isolation. Although a prayer has been made for sale of movable and immovable property for the realisation of the loan but that would not take out the suit from the purview of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure since it would remain a Money Suit only. 6. At the time of the sanctioning of the loan, the Banking Institution gets a pronote, guarantee papers, the mortgage of immovable property and hypothecation of movable items. All this is done to ensure that no loophole left out for the recovery of the amount and that the loan is secured. This in my view would not make out a suit falling in Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Equitable mortgage of the property would at best be a collateral security as has been held by the learned trial Court. The suit is basically for the recovery of the amount of loan for which a pronote stands executed and other guarantee papers. In my view there is neither any illegality nor irregularity nor any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. 7. There is no merit in this revision petition which is consequently dismissed with no orders as to costs.Revision rejected. *******