Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. This revision application, at the instance of the defendants, is directed against the order dated 20.3.99 passed by Sub-Judge VI, Dhanbad in Mortgage Suit No. 145/92, whereby he has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs opposite party for conversion of the Mortgage Suit into a Money Suit. 2. It appears that the plaintiff-opposite party, namely, State Bank of India filed a Title (Mortgage) Suit No. 145/92 against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 4,82,526.45 paise and also prayed for a decree under Order 34 Rule 4 CPC in respect of the property mentioned in the Schedule at the foot of the plaint. The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioners by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that the suit is barred under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and is not maintainable as the court at Dhanbad cannot pass a mortgage decree in respect of the mortgage property which is situated within the jurisdiction of Giridih District. It further appears that the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint by converting the Title (Mortgage) Suit into a money suit. The said prayer was opposed by the defendants-petitioners and the court below, by passing the impugned order has allowed the application. 3. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, assailed the impugned order on the ground that the court below having no jurisdiction to entertain the mortgage suit, has committed illegality in entertaining the amendment petition and passing the impugned order allowing the plaintiff to convert the mortgage suit into a money suit. In this connection learned counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Ratan Chand V/s. Mahendra Kumar ( AIR 1979 Cal. 55 ), Praking V/s. State Bank of Indore ( AIR 1996 M.P. 28 ), Muni Lal V/s. General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( AIR 1996 SC 642 ) and in the case of Vijendra Kumar Goel V/s. Kusum Bhuwania (1997) 11 SCC 457 . 4. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel. Admittedly the plaintiff-Bank having its branch at Dhanbad granted loan to the defendants and various documents were executed within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad court. The defendants also gave in security title deeds in respect of the immovable property situated at Giridih by way of adequate mortgage. 5. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel. Admittedly the plaintiff-Bank having its branch at Dhanbad granted loan to the defendants and various documents were executed within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad court. The defendants also gave in security title deeds in respect of the immovable property situated at Giridih by way of adequate mortgage. 5. From perusal of the plaint, it appears that in para 22 the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs : "(a) For a decree for a sum of Rs. 4,82,526.45 against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. (b) Sale of the properties and assets, stocks of goods and merchandise of the defendants in the cinema house premises and appropriation of the sale proceeds, thereof towards pro tanto satisfaction of the plaintiffs aforesaid claim. (c) Decree under Order XXXIV Rule 4 CPC in Form 54 in appendix D schedule I hereto in respect of the property mentioned in Schedule below. (d) Liberty to the plaintiff to apply for personal decree against the defendant. (e) Interest interim and future. (f) Injunction. (g) Receiver. (h) Costs. (i) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found entitled to." 6. From bare perusal of the relief portion of the plaint, it is evident that initially the plaintiff prayed for a simple money decree besides a decree under Order 34 Rule 4 CPC. Be that as it may, even in a suit where relief for a mortgage decree as contemplated under Order 34 Rule 4 CPC is prayed for by the plaintiff the court is [sicnot] debarred from granting a money decree, in the event it is found that the plaintiff is entitled to a money decree. In that view of the matter I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the court below. Had it been a case, where relief of a money decree would have been converted into a mortgage decree then the matter would have been otherwise. 7. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Had it been a case, where relief of a money decree would have been converted into a mortgage decree then the matter would have been otherwise. 7. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Vijendra Kumar Goel (supra) the fact was that a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiff and subsequently petition for amendment was filed for conversion of the suit into a suit for specific performance, when claim for specific performance had already become barred by limitation. In that context the Supreme Court held that such amendment could not be allowed. In the instant case, as noticed above, a money decree was already claimed in the plaint and, therefore, by amendment the plaintiff wanted only to change the cause title of the plaint by mentioning the nature of the suit as Money Suit instead of Mortgage Suit. 8. In the case of Muni Lal (supra) a similar question arose before the apex court in a case where the plaintiff merely seeks a declaration that he is entitled to payment for loss of the truck without seeking a consequential relief of payment of quantified amount. When the relief became barred by limitation, a petition for amendment was filed seeking a relief for recovery of the amount. In that context their Lordships of the Apex Court has rejected the prayer holding that the relief sought for become barred by limitation. 9. In the case of Ratan Chand (supra) it was held that the court lacking pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit is not competent to allow amendment of the plaint. As discussed above the court below was not lacking territorial jurisdiction as also the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the reason that a relief for money decree was claimed in the suit and, therefore, the ratio decided by the Calcutta High Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Similarly, the decision cited by the learned counsel in the case of Praking V/s. State Bank of Indore (supra) does not apply in the instant case. 11. 10. Similarly, the decision cited by the learned counsel in the case of Praking V/s. State Bank of Indore (supra) does not apply in the instant case. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion of law made hereinabove, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below. This application is, therefore, dismissed.