STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SANJEEV MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of the plaintiffs application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3.) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking leave to withdraw part of its claim in the suit with the liberty to file a fresh suit as regards that claim before a competent court having jurisdiction at Gurgaon.

(2.) The plaintiff bank filed this suit on 18.7.1984 impleading four defendants, all being the heirs of late Shri J.R. Malik. It is alleged in the plaint that cash credit account was opened with the plaintiff bank and loan facilities were sanctioned consequent to which the defendant owned a liability in an amount of Rs. 7,98,247.37 on the date of the suit. Para 6 of the plaint also makes a mention of defendant No. 1 having created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of certain property situated at Gurgaon which belongs to M/S. Jaisa Tyres Pvt Ltd. A preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage was also prayed for. On 10.10.1985, the plaintiff moved an application (IA 6659/85) under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code read with Order 1 Rule 10Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment in the plaint and also impleadment of M/S Jaisa Tyres Pvt Ltd as defendant in the suit. It was pointed out that to act as security for that suit amount M/S. Jaisa Tyres Pvt Ltd had also executed an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of certain property belonging to that company situated at Gurgaon.

(3.) The prayer for amendment was opposed on behalf of the defendant by submitting that the suit for redemption of mortgage in respect of the property situated at Gurgaon, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, could not lie before the Court at Delhi and hence the court could not permit the amendment This Court vide order dated 5.9.89 allowed the plaintiffs application for amendment in part to the extent to which the amendment proposed to clarify the factual averments against the defendants already on record. The prayer for amendment by which it proposed to implead M/S Jaisa Tyres Pvt Ltd and additional facts as regards the defendant proposed to be newly added was refused. The court referred to Section 16(C) of the Civil Procedure Code which provides suit relating to mortgage of immoveable property being instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.