JUDGMENT :

This is an application filed by the petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) for appointment of a Receiver for making inventory of and taking possession of the hypothecated assets under two agreements executed between the parties on 28th June, 2019. The application has been filed in a suit for a money decree and for sale of the hypothecated assets described in the Schedule to the plaint.

2. The respondent company owns a tea garden in Silchar, Assam. The facts culminating in the prayer for appointment of Receiver arises out of business loans advanced by the petitioner to the respondent amounting approximately to Rs.2.50 crores against hypothecation of assets of the respondent under a Loan Agreement and a Deed of Hypothecation. The loan facility was extended by the petitioner to the respondent with an agreed rate of interest of 12% which would be increased to 18% in the event of default on the part of the respondent in repayment of the loan. Under the first agreement, in the event of default, the lender (petitioner) was entitled to take possession of and recover and sell by public auction or private contract the goods which formed part of the assets hypothecated in favour of the petitioner.

3. The agreement also provided that the outstanding amount shall become payable on demand and the lender shall become entitled to the possession of the securities hypothecated and sell the same. Under the Deed of Hypothecation, in return of the credit facilities, the petitioner was given a first charge on the entire current assets of the company and on Trees, Tea Shrubs and Fresh plantation. The agreement defines hypothecated assets as the respondent’s entire stock of raw materials, consumer goods, and other “movables” including Book Debts, money receivable etc. Clause 3 also mentions whole of Trees, Tea shrubs and Fresh plantation in the respondent’s tea garden at Silchar, Assam. The second agreement further provides for the right to inspect, recover and sell the hypothecated assets in case of any breach or default by the Borrower. Schedule 1 to the deed of hypothecation provides particulars of properties which were hypothecated to the petitioner including Trees, Tea shrubs and Fresh plantation at the respondent’s tea garden at Assam. The relevant Form which has been made part of the application shows that the movable property has been charged by the respondent in return for the credit facility of Rs. 2.50 crores.

4. The ledger accounts for the relevant part further shows that credit facilities of Rs. 2.50 crores were given by the petitioner and received by the respondent. The fact of money being lent is further evident from several letters of demand issued by the petitioner to the respondent.

5. These facts would be evident from the materials on record placed by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent raises two objections, the first contention is that the present application is not maintainable since the suit is a suit for land which cannot be entertained by this court. The second objection is on the factual aspect, namely, that the respondent does not owe any outstanding sum of money to the petitioner and further that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in the application for interim relief.

7. The point of maintainability is being taken up first. A suit for land, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is a suit where the plaintiff claims title or delivery of possession of land or immovable property, where leave under Clause 12 is required if a part of such land or property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

8. According to the respondent, this Court would not have jurisdiction to try the suit since the plaintiff seeks possession of immovable property situated in Assam. To ascertain whether the suit falls in this category, the prayers in the plaint as well as the pleadings therein would have to be considered.

9. Prayer (b) of the p