D K BHARGAVA Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 7 lacs with interest pendilite and future interest under Order XXXIV Code of Civil Procedure (for short Civil Procedure Code) by way of sale of mortgaged property. The Defendants 4,5,6 and 7 have raised a preliminary objection by way of moving the present application stating that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, as the property alleged to be mortgaged in favour of the Plaintiff is situated in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the Defendants is that in a suit for recovery by way of sale of mortgaged property the provisions of Section 16(c) Civil Procedure Code are applicable and the suit can only be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property in suit is situated. It is contended that in a case which is covered by Section 16(c) Civil Procedure Code, Section 20 Civil Procedure Code cannot be called in aid. Section 20 Civil Procedure Code is specifically stated to be subject to the limitations laid down in Sections 16 to 19 Civil Procedure Code. Reliance is placed on Mrs. Rosy Joseph & Ors. v. Union Bank of India, AIR 1978 Kerala 209, where a similar question had arisen and it was held that a suit to recover money by sale of mortgaged property could only be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the mortgage property was situated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Plaintiff admits that the property in suit is situated in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, however, reliance is placed by him on the proviso to Section 16(c) Civil Procedure Code claiming that relief sought by the Plaintiff can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the Defendants.