( 1 ) THE State Bank of India filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 52,357. 51 based on cash credit facilities granted to the defendants-respondents. The said defendants had also deposited the title deeds in respect of house property No. 87, Dholi Piao, Mathura allegedly for the purpose of furnishing a guarantee as collateral security for the advance. This suit was decided on the Original Side of this Court.

( 2 ) FOLLOWING the Division Bench of this Court in Suit No. 51 of 1968, State. Bank of India v. Himalayan Exporters and another, decided on 20th November, 1970, it was held by the learned Single Judge that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff has appealed and the learned counsel has pressed that this matter should be placed before a larger Bench for re-considering the decision of the Division Bench aforementioned. We have carefully considered the contention and we find no reason to differ from the judgment of the said Division Bench.

( 4 ) IT is not necessary to set out the point at any great length because the said judgment has fully analysed the conclusion. However, as brought to our notice by learned counsel for the appellant, the said judgment is not reported and so it is necessary, in our view, to set out the point in short so that the view of this Court may be fully known as far as the jurisdiction question is concerned.

( 5 ) SECTION 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in the following terms :-

"120. Provisions not applicable to High Court in original Civil jurisdiction :- The following provisions shall not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction namely, Sections 16, 17 and 20. "it so happens that Section 16 is the provision on which indicates the jurisdiction for dealing with suits relating to immovable property. It is stated therein that all suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of mortgage or charge upon immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. If the Section applies, the suit has to be filed at Mathura and nowhere and now- where also.

( 6 ) IN the Chartered High Courts which were granted Original Side Jurisdiction by the Letters Patent which created them, there is a special clause indicating the limits of the Original Side Jurisdiction. That clause is Clause 12. In other High Courts which were not created by the Letters Patent, or where the Letters Patent did not give the Court Original Side jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suits is not set out either in the Letters Patent or in any other law. In the case of the Delhi High Court, the Original Jurisdiction was granted to the Court by the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The only provision relating to the scope of the same is provided by Section 12) of the Act which states :-

"notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds rupees one lakh. the sum of Rs. l,00,000. 00 was originally Rs. 25,000. 00 which was raised to Rs. 50,000. 00 and then to Rs. l,00,000. 00. At the time this suit was being tried, the value was Rs. 50,000. 00. This Section does not grant the Delhi High Court any further jurisdiction than that which is set out in the Code of Civil Procedure. If we hold that Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code do not apply to the High Court, then we have no alternative provision to fall back upon , In the case of the Chartered High Courts, and it may be in the case of other High Courts which are created by Statute, the limits of the jurisdiction may be varied from those set out in Sections, 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such a case there will be an inconsistency between the provisions of the Code and those of the Letters Patent or any other law creating that High Court. For this