A. K. BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the impugned order being No. 41 dated 22. 05. 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat, 24 Pgs. (N) in T. S. 252/95. ( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to the present revision are that the present petitioner filed T. S. 77/93 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for a decree for Rs. 3,15,913. 66p. , interest, charge, sale and realisation of the disputed properties etc. The properties mortgaged by defendants/respondents 2 and 3 are situated at Rajarhat in Dumdum Municipality within the jurisdiction of Barasat Court and outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. In view of the lack of jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta to entertain any suit relating to the said immovable properties at Rajarhat, the petitioner had filed Mortgage Suit being No. T. S 252/1995 in the Court of Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Barasat against the defendants/respondents for a decree for the said amount of Rs. 3,15,913. 66p. interest, declaration of charge etc. In the said Mortgage Suit, defendants 2 and 3 in their W. S. substantially agreed to pay the legitimate dues by instalments but challenged the maintainability of the suit because of the earlier suit filed by the petitioner in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. By the impugned order the learned Judge stayed the Mortgage Suit till disposal of the previously instituted suit being T. S. 77/93 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta on the grounds that reliefs in both the suits are same and identical, that the matter in issue in the Mortgage suit is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit, that the City Civil Court like Barasat Court was competent to grant reliefs claimed ant that there could be conflict of decisions if the two suits are heard by two different Courts. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order, the petitioner preferred the present revision. ( 4 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the said order. ( 5 ) AS none appeared on behalf of the opposite party/defendants the application was heard ex parte. ( 6 ) MR. ( 4 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the said order. ( 5 ) AS none appeared on behalf of the opposite party/defendants the application was heard ex parte. ( 6 ) MR. Saptangshu Basu, learned counsel for the petitioner, on referring to clause (e) of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure contended that as it is a Mortgage Suit and the mortgaged immovable properties are situated at Rajarhat within Dumdum Municipality falling within the jurisdiction of Barasat Court and outside the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, the impugned order staying T. S. 252/95 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat till disposal of the earlier suit being T. S. 77/93 pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta is bad in law and as such is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) SECTION 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the general provision covering all personal actions i. e. relations to person or movable property which shall be instituted in a Court within whose local jurisdiction (i) the defendant actually resides or carries on business, or (ii) any of the defendants actually resides etc. , or (iii) the cause of action or a part thereof arises. But as the pending words of the said section 20 state, it is subject to the provisions of sections 16 to 19. A case which is directly governed by section 16 (c) must be filed in the Court within the jurisdiction of which the mortgaged properties are situated. In the present case, the suit pending in the Court of Barasat is a suit for recovery of loan under a mortgage which is covered by section 16 and so, since the mortgaged properties are said to be situated at Rajarhat within Dumdum Municipality which falls within the jurisdiction of Barasat Court, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat is the proper forum. In this connection, the decision reported in AIR 1996 MP 28 may be referred to. In this connection, the decision reported in AIR 1996 MP 28 may be referred to. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that where the defendants reside within the jurisdiction of one Court and the mortgaged properties within the jurisdiction of another Court like the case on hand, and where the suit for personal remedy and remedy against the property are brought in the Former Court, the Former Court should proceed with the plaint in so far as the relief for personal decree is concerned and declare its inability to grant relief against the property outside the jurisdiction. The plaintiff can be asked to amend the plaint by deleting the relief outside the jurisdiction, failing which the Court may strike off that part of the plaint on the ground of want of jurisdiction which would mean that the right to that relief could be pursued in the Court having proper jurisdiction. Even if the relief outside jurisdiction is dismissed, it is a dismissal not on merits so as to become res judicata or bar action under Order 2 Rule 2, as the refusal to give relief is based on absence of jurisdiction as was held in the case reported in State Bank of India v. Sanjib Malik, AIR 1996 Del 284 . ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the learned Court below having failed to consider the above clear provision of law and thus failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it, the impugned order is not at all sustainable. ( 9 ) IN the premises, the revisional application succeeds ex parte. The impugned order being No. 41 dated 22. 05. 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat in T. S. 252/95 be set aside. Let a copy of this order be sent down at once to the learned Court below with a direction to proceed with the hearing of the suit in accordance with the law and in the light of observation made above. Application succeeds