Section 16(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Therefore, a suit for foreclosure or sale of a mortgage property situate outside the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be maintained before it.

R.L. Khurana, J.—The present suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,71,749.85 has been preferred by the plaintiff Bank against the four defendants under Order 34, Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Defendant No.1 M/s. Eleena Fasteners (P) Ltd. is a private limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. Defendants No.2 and 3 are the promoters and Directors thereof. On having been authorised by the Board of Directors of defendant No.1, defendants 2 and 3 approached the plaintiff-Bank at Nahan for the grant of cash credit facility against hypothecation of stock and for the grant of bill discounting facility. The plaintiff-Bank granted cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 2,30 lacs and bill discounting facility to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs to defendant No.1 on the condition that the defendant company and its Directors will remain bound by all terms and conditions of loan facilities. Defendants 2 and 3 also undertook to give their personal security for the repayment of the amount sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 as loan towards the abovesaid two facilities. Defendant No. 4 created an equitable mortgage in respect of her immovable property situate at Jagadhari. Consequent upon sanction of loan in favour of defendant No.1, all the necessary documents came to be executed by defendants 2 to 4. The two loans carried interest at the rate of 16-1/2% per annum with quarterly rests. The defendants having availed of the loan failed to pay the amount in terms of the conditions on which the loans were sanctioned and as on the date of suit, a sum of Rs. 5,71, 749-85 towards principal and interest was due from the defendants towards such loan. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendants 1 and 3 did not put in appearance inspite of service and consequently they were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

4. The suit is thus being resisted and contested only by defendants 2 and 4. While resisting the suit, these defendants have admitted the loans in favour of defendant No. 1. They have, however, denied either having furnished their personal guarantee for the repayment of loan or having created an equitable mortgage as a collateral security for such loan. Objections as to jurisdiction of this Court and the suit not having been filed through a competent person were also raised. It was further pleaded that the present suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure in view of pendency of an earlier suit between the parties at Jagadhari with regard to alleged mortgage. It was also pleaded that with effect from 29.7.1991 defendant No. 3 was in sole control of affairs of defendant No. 1 with the consent of plaintiff-Bank and in view of the agreement dated 14.11.1991, defendants 2 and 4 are absolved from their liability in respect of two loans.

5. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed on 28.12.1994:—

1. Whether the present suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10, CPC, as alleged ? OPD

2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit has been filed by a competent person. If not, its effect ? OP Parties

4. Whether the loan documents executed by defendant No. 2 were on behalf of defendant No. 1 and, therefore, defendant No.2 was not liable personally for the loan amount, as alleged ? OPD 2

5. Whether the plaintiff-Bank obtained signatures of defendant No. 4 at Jagadhari on blank papers by fraud and misrepresentation, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD

6. Whether equitable mortgage could not be created in the manner it has been so done, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD

7. Whether defendant No. 3 was in sole control of defendant No. 1 with effect from 29.7.1991 with the collusive assent of the plaintiff, as alleged. If so, its effect? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit in view of its act and conduct, as alleged? OPD

9. Whether defendants No. 2 and 4 are absolved of their liability in view of acceptance of agreement dated 14.11.1991 by the plaintiff, as al