Judgment

R.C. Lahoti, J.—The respondent is a scheduled bank (non-nationalised). The first appellant is a sole proprietary concern. The second appellant is the proprietor of the first appellant. In January, 1990 the respondent filed a suit, for recovery of its dues, against the appellants. According to the respondent the appellants were sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs. 3,50,000/- for which purpose a demand promissory note dated 17.8.1985 was executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent. A deed of hypothecation dated 17.8.1985 hypothecating the stock of raw-materials and finished goods and a deed of mortgage of property dated 14.8.1985 mortgaging the appellant’s bungalow situated in Andheri (West) and a few other documents are also said to have been executed by appellants in favour of respondent. On 24th January, 1990 an amount of Rs.7,61,798.68 p. was allegedly outstanding against the appellants for the recovery whereof a suit on the Original Side of High Court of Bombay was filed by the respondent.

2. On 3rd March, 1995 a learned Single Judge, sitting on the Original Side, passed a decree under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC against the appellants “in terms of prayers cla