D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

This civil appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2007 passed in O.S.No.594 of 2000 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. The suit O.S.No.594 of 2000 is filed by NICCO UCO Alliance Credit Ltd. against 7 defendants initially. Later, defendant No.8 is added as the legal heir of the deceased-defendant No.5 and defendants 9, 10 & 11 are added as legal heirs of the deceased-defendant No.3.

3. The suit is filed by the plaintiff, which is a non-banking financial company. According to the averments of the plaint, defendant No.1, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, has approached the plaintiff for financial assistance for purchase of 4 numbers of 1000 KVA diesel generator sets. Defendant No.1 is the borrower company, defendants 2, 3 & 4 are the guarantors for the financial facilities availed. The financial facilities were also secured by the equitable mortgage of plaint A, B & C schedule properties belonging to defendants 3, 5 & 6 respectively. Defendant No.7 is the supplier of the equipment. The property mortgaged is described as plaint A, B and C schedule.

4. Defendants 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10 filed detailed written statements denying the suit claim and raising, inter alia among other things, the following pleas:

(i) that the suit is barred by the provisions of Order II Rule-2 CPC as the plaintiff filed a suit C.S.No.640 of 1999 on the file of the original suit of Honble High Court of Calcutta.

(ii) that defendant No.3 is not authorized to create a mortgage and that the property said to have been mortgaged is in fact belonging to DW.6 (Smt. G.Bujamma), the mother of defendant No.9 and that no mortgage is created.

(iii) The Court has no territorial jurisdiction.

5. Based on the pleadings, the lower Court initially framed two issues and later on framed 7 additional issues also. After hearing both the parties and after recording the evidence of 2 witnesses for the plaintiff and 6 witnesses for the defendants and after marking Exs.A.1 to A.32 (for plaintiff) and Exs.B.1 to B.17 (for the defendants), the lower Court passed a decree which is now impugned in the present appeal. The lower Court passed a preliminary decree entitling the plaintiff to recover the suit amount with costs and interest @ 6% p.a. and also held that the decree should first be satisfied by sale of mortgaged property only and if the said sale proceeds are insufficient, the lower Court granted decree against defendants 2, 6, 7, 9 & 10. The suit against defendant No.4 was dismissed as abated and the suit against defendant No.8 was dismissed as she has no personal liability.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by defendants 9, 10 & 11, who were the appellants herein.

7. Heard the learned counsels Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, for the appellants and Sri Srinivas Chitluru, for the contesting respondents.

8. The first and foremost contention that raised by Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants is that the Court at Hyderabad, wherein the suit was presented has no territorial jurisdiction at all (issue No.2). It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that as per clause 22 of the lease agreement (Ex.A.1), it is the Court at Calcutta alone that has exclusive jurisdiction. He also states that the entire transaction took place at Calcutta and hence, the Hyderabad Court has no jurisdiction.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants also drew the attention of this Court to the judgment reported in Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd and another (1995) 4 SCC 153 and contends that the suit is not maintainable in the Hyderabad Court. However, a reading of this judgment makes it clear that the suit in which the Honble Supreme Court was dealing was not a suit pertaining to enforcement of a mortgage and was a suit for recovery of money based on a contract. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said jud