The main legal point established is that a suit for enforcement of a mortgage by sale of immovable property must be instituted only in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the mortgaged property is situated, as mandated by S.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1.This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Kochu Thommen J. as it was felt by the learned judge that the decision in Narayana Pillai v. Gopala Pillai (1973 KLT. 413) requires reconsideration.

2. The revision petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 222 of 1975 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam. That is a suit filed by the 1st respondent-Union Bank of India for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28, 153.75 with interest by a sale of the plaint A schedule immovable properties on the basis of a transaction of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. In the written statement filed by the defendants they contended inter alia that the properties covered by the mortgage sought to be enforced in the suit being situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cochin, the suit ought to have been filed only in that court under S.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the Sub Court, Ernakulam, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The said question relating to the jurisdiction of the court was considered as a preliminary point by the Subordinate Judge and by the order now sought to be revised, it was held that the Sub Court, Ernakulam, where the suit was instituted had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In coming to the conclusion the Subordinate Judge has relied solely on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Narayana Pillai v. Gopala Piilai (1973 KLT. 413). In that case a subscriber in a chitty had filed the suit against the stake holder and another person and even though it is stated in the judgment that some properties had been given as security by the stake-holder, it is not clear from the judgment whether the suit was one for enforcement of the said security by sale of any immovable properties. However, from the nature of the contentions advanced in the case, it would appear that such a relief must also have been claimed by the plaintiff in that suit. The properties given as security were situated within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mavelikara, but the suit was filed in Quilon. A preliminary objection was raised by the defendants that the Sub Court, Quilon had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Subordinate Judge, Quilon overruled the said contentions of the defendants and held that his court bad jurisdiction The matter was thereupon carried up to this court by the 2nd defendant by filing a Civil Revision Petition. Raghavan C. J. dismissed the Civil Revision Petition upholding the view taken by the lower court that the Sub Court, Quilon had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The reasoning on which the learned judge came to the said conclusion is contained in the following passage extracted from page 414 of the report:

"There are three defendants in this suit; and it cannot be disputed that the suit against the first defendant was properly laid in the court at Quilon. The contract was with the first defendants: that was at Quilon: the breach of that contract was also at Quilon. If so, for the sake of argument, even if it is accepted that the Mavelikara court had also jurisdiction since the properties given as security were at Mavelikara, still the jurisdiction of the Quilon court is not taken away. In such a case where there are two courts which have jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the right to choose the court in which he should institute his suit: the defendant cannot insist on the choice of the forum. This proposition is well-founded and well-established. In this view of the matter also, the suit was properly instituted in the Quilon Court."

3. It is contended before us by the learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that in a suit for enforcement of a mortgage by sale of an immovable property, there is no choice given to the plaintiff under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the forum in which the action has to be instituted. Counsel urge