JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, Judge:- This is plaintiffs suit under Section 5 and 17 of Delhi High Court original side Rules as applicable to Himachal Pradesh read with Section 26, Order 7, Rules 1 and 2 and Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for recovery of Rs.9,93,788/-. Case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that it is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1995 with its central office at Bombay and one of its Branch at Kala Amb. District Sirmaur in Himachal Pradesh. The Branch Manager of the said Branch of the bank being the Principal Officer is authorised to file suits on behalf of plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 is a Company with its head office at Trilokpur, Kala Amb and is engaged in the manufacture of rubber canvas and rubber footwear. Defendant No. 1 applied for grant of cash-credit hypothecation limit of Rs.4.43 lacs through defendant No. 2 and agreed to return the said amount with interest at the stipulated rate of interest. The plaintiff bank agreed to grant the facility as requested for and in view there of the defendants and defendant No. 1 through defendants 2 to 4 executed the agreement of cash-credit hypothecation of goods, continuing guarantee, letter of arrangement and promissory note dated 19.12.1989 which was endorsed in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant availed the facility but failed to comply with the terms thereof. The balances as on 31.03.1991, 07.02.1992, 31.03.1992 and 06.07.1992 however were confirmed. The payments made by the defendants were duly accounted for and after adjustment thereof a sum of Rs.7,91,481/- was payable by the defendants on 11.07.1994. Defendant No. l through its Managing Director, defen dantNo.2, also applied to the plaintiff bank for grant of cash-credit hypothecation of book debts and assets limit of Rs.2.7 lacs agreeing to the terms and conditions of the facility including to repay the amount alongwith stipulated interest. The defendants in this regard executed agreement of cash-credit hypothecation of debts and assets, agreement of continuing guarantee, demand promissory note for Rs.2.70 lacs which was endorsed by defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants availed this facility also but became irregular in compliance of the terms and conditions thereof. The defendants in this regard executed agreement of cash-credit hypothecation of debts and assets, agreement of continuing guarantee, demand promissory note for Rs.2.70 lacs which was endorsed by defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants availed this facility also but became irregular in compliance of the terms and conditions thereof. Defendant No.2 as Managing Director of defendant No. 1 executed revival letters acknowledging the amount on 7.7.1992 and the defendants also executed such letters on 31.12.1991. Balance confirmation letters were also executed by the defendants on 7.7.1992, 31.3.1992 and 7.7.1992. After adjustment of various payments a sum of Rs.3,02,307/- on this count was due to the plaintiff from the defendants on 13.7.1994. In respect of the fixed assets of the company of the defendant No.l first charge is of Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation and with the permission and consent of said Corporation, defendant No. 1 through its Managing Director, defendant No.2, created second charge in respect of the fixed assets of the company in favour of the plaintiff. In order to secure the payment of the amounts defendant No.3 created equitable mortgage by depositing his title deeds in respect of the land comprising khewat No.49, Khatauni No.69, measuring 2 Acres 2 Kanals, situate at Village Ankhir, Tehsil and District Faridabad, Haryana. On account of the aforesaid transactions regarding availing of the facilities by defendant No. 1 a sum of Rs.9,93,788/- was payable by the defendants at the time of institution of the suit which amount the defendants have failed to repay despite demands. Hence, this suit for a decree for Rs.9.93,788/- alongwith interest pendente lite and thereafter till the realisation of the amount and a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and a decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and a decree for recovery of the balance amount if any from other assets and properties of the defendants. 2. Defendants No. 1 to 3 contested the suit. In their written statement they have denied the authority of Charanjeet Singh, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank to sue, sign and verify the pleadings for and on behalf of the bank. It has further been averred that the defendants infact applied to the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, Shimla for setting up an industrial unit with the working capital of Rs.30 lacs. It has further been averred that the defendants infact applied to the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, Shimla for setting up an industrial unit with the working capital of Rs.30 lacs. The case of the defendants for grant of working capital of Rs.30 lacs was forwarded by the H.P. Financial Corporation to the plaintiff bank. However, against the said proposed working capital, plaintiff sanctioned working capital of Rs.7.13 lacs arbitrarily but even that was not allowed to be utilised. The non-cooperative attitude of the bank in this regard resulted in the industry of the defendant becoming sick. The rehabilitation package was made but the plaintiff bank refused to cooperate. The signatures of defendants 2 and 3 were obtained on various blank papers and printed forms and such papers were subsequently filled in by the plaintiff or its employees. The defendants did not agree to pay interest at the claimed rate. Availing of the facility has been denied. It is further averred by the defendants that the bank had charged illegal and exhorbitant rate of interest contrary to the documents and the law and it is stopped from filing the present suit on account of its own acts, deeds and conduct. The jurisdiction of this court to try and determine the suit has been denied on the ground that the suit property is not situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Contesting defendants have thus denied the claim of the plaintiff as a whole. 3. Plaintiff filed replication whereby the grounds of defence as taken in the written statement have been denied and the claim as made in the plaint has been reaffirmed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD 1 to 3. 2. Whether the suit has not been filed by a competent person as alleged, if so its effect? OPD-1 to 3. 3. Whether the defendant No. 1 become a sick unit due to the acts of ommission and commission of the plaintiff-bank, as alleged if so, its effect? OPD-1 to 3. 4. Whether the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank documents, which were filled in later, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD-1 to3. 5. Whether the defendants created an equitable mortgage with the limits of this Court, if not, its effect? OP Parties. 6. OPD-1 to 3. 4. Whether the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank documents, which were filled in later, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD-1 to3. 5. Whether the defendants created an equitable mortgage with the limits of this Court, if not, its effect? OP Parties. 6. To what rate of interest is the plaintiff-bank entitled to? OP Parties. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount or any other amount? OPP 8. Relief. Parties led evidence. Arguments heard. My findings on the above issues are as under: Issue No. 1. 5. This issue is based on the objection taken by defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement that the suit property (mortgaged property) is not situate within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Code this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. There is no dispute that the property in respect of which the equitable mortgage has been created by the defendant as a collateral security for loan advanced by the plaintiff bank is situate in village, Ankhir, Tehsil and District Faridabad (Haryana) outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 7. In a suit for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property the jurisdiction of the Court is governed by the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Code which provides that such a suit shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. 8. As already stated herein above, the mortgaged land is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Code this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. 9. The view taken hereinabove is fully supported by the decision in Central Bank of India v. Eleena Fasteners (P) Ltd. and others 1999(2) Shimla Law Cases 263 in which a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: "Clause (c) of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. According to this Section, therefore, the suit for foreclosure or sale of a mortgage Property situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court shall not be triable by it." It was further held:- "Admittedly, in the present case, the immovable property regarding which an equitable mortgage was created by defendant No.4 as a collateral security for loan advanced by the Plaintiff-bank is situated at Jagadhari in the State of Haryana. Therefore, a suit for foreclosure or sale of such mortgage property could be instituted only before Civil Court at Jagadhari in the State of Haryana and not before this Court in view of explicit and mandatory provisions contained in Clause(c) of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the defendants." 10. In view of the above discussion and the position on law, it is held that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the defendants. Issues No. 2 to 7 11. In view of the findings on issue No.l above, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. Therefore, these issues cannot be gone into and decided. Therefore, these are left undecided. Issue No.8 12. In view of the findings on issue no. 1, that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit, plaint of this suit is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 10, of the code for presentation to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.