A.S. Oka, J.

By this appeal, the appellants who are the original defendants have taken an exception to the Judgment and order dated 1st October 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge on a Notice of Motion taken out by the respondent-plaintiff.

2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made across the bar, it will be necessary to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. For the sake of convenience, we are referring the parties with reference to their status before the learned Single Judge. A suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree against the first defendant in the sum of Rs. 3,98,02,466/- at the rate of 13.50% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- from 1st August 2013. The second prayer in the suit is for a declaration that the suit property which is the flat No. 2 (the "suit flat") in Shreyas building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400 020 and the shares issued by the Shreyas Cooperative Housing Society Limited stand validly mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit claim. The third prayer is for a decree fixing a date for redemption of mortgage. There are other consequential reliefs sought in the plaint. The case made out by the plaintiff is that it was supplying certain raw material required for manufacturing polyester filaments to the second defendant. Prior to 6th September 2005, the second defendant was enjoying the credit exposure limit of Rs. 11.25 crores with the plaintiff. On 6th September 2005, by addressing a letter to the second defendant, the exposure limit was offered to be enhanced to Rs. 13.25 crores subject to the condition of reducing the exposure to the present level of Rs. 11.25 crores. This was subject to additional condition of the first defendant mortgaging suit property in favour of the plaintiff.

3. According to the plaintiff, on 9th September 2005, a Memorandum was executed by the first defendant recording deposit of title deeds in respect of the suit property with the plaintiff. The memorandum records that the mortgage shall continue as security for the credit exposure granted to the second defendant which could be released only upon reduction of additional credit exposure of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- by 31st March 2006.

4. It is alleged that the second defendant defaulted in its assurance of reducing credit exposure limit from Rs. 13.25 crores to Rs. 11.25 crores by 31st March 2006 and in fact outstanding amount on the said date payable by the second defendant was Rs. 16,79,09,732.62/-. The second defendant according to the plaintiff admitted that the account remained overdue and large amount was payable to the plaintiff. Reliance is placed on certain letters of the second defendant admitting that the account had remained overdue. A summary suit was filed by the plaintiff against the second defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,47,83,280/-. The plaintiff continued to be a mortgagee of the suit property to secure repayment of the enhanced credit limit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and the interest accrued thereon. According to the case of the plaintiff, one of its Officers Mr. P.A. Francis, Surveyor and valuer visited the suit flat for conducting valuation. He was informed by the manager of the housing society that the first defendant had intimated the society that the defendants had resolved their dispute with the plaintiff by paying the outstanding amount and therefore, a request was made to the society by the first defendant to issue a duplicate Share Certificate. On 27th May 2013, the plaintiff addressed a letter to the said society repudiating the said representation made by the first defendant and called upon the society not to entertain any application made by the first defendant in respect of the transfer of the suit property. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed.

5. In the suit, a Notice of Motion was taken out by the plaintiff for appointment of Receiver of the suit property and for injunction. On application made for grant of urgent