R. L. Khurana, J.:- The plaintiff, State Bank of India, has filed the present suit under Order 34, Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs.6,94,610.44 paise against the four defendants by sale of the mortgaged property comprising of land measuring 4050 sq. feet comprising of Khasra No. I 25/2, Vishnu Garden, Kankhal, Haridwar (Uttar Pradesh) and bounded as under:- East Badahu, Rajbaha Patri West Rasta Aam 20 feet North Land of Des Raj South Private Gali 10 feet.

2. Defendant No. 1 Messrs Shri Lime and Chemical Industries is a registered partnership firm of which defendants No. 2 to 4 are the partners. The defendants were granted two loans by the plaintiff bank on 7.9.1990 as follows:-

1. Cash credit limit against book debts to the tune of Rs.75, 000/-; and 27 Cash credit limit against pledge of goods to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-

3. The two loans carried interest at the rate of 15-1/2% per annum with quarterly rests. Defendants No. 2 to 4 also furnished their personal continuing guarantee for he repayment of the loans. Defendant No. 2 also created an equitable mortgage in respect of his landed property situated in Haridwar, as detailed above, in favour of the plaintiff- bank by deposit of title deeds as security for the repayment of loans.

4. The defendants having availed the loans failed to repay the same and as on the date of suit, a sum of Rs.6, 94,610.44 paise was due from them in respect of the two loans towards principal and interest.

5. The defendants while resisting the suit admitted the loans but denied their liability on the ground that to the knowledge of the plaintiff- bank, the affairs of the defendant No. 1 were sold by defendants No. 2 to 4 to S/Shri S.S. Aggarwal and S.K. Aggarwal arid these transferees had undertaken all the assets and liability of the firm deferent No.1. It was pleaded that the suit is therefore, bad for mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties. They further denied having executed the guarantee deeds or having created an equitable mortgage. Rate of interest as claimed by the plaintiff-bank was also denied. It was pleaded that the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank proforma. An objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court was also raised and it was pleaded that the present suit to enforce sale of mortgaged property situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this courts is not maintainable in this Court.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue were framed on 3.5.1995:-

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

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount or any other amount? If so how much? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and from which date? OPP.

4. Whether a legally enforceable equitable mortgage was created, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP

5. If issue No. 4 is proved in the affirmative whether the suit is maintainable in this court for enforcement of sale of mortgaged property which is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court? OP.

6. Whether the suit is not within time? OPP.

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of S/Shri S.K. Aggarwal and S.S. Aggarwal as alleged? If so, to what effect? OPD.

8. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendants No. 2 to 4, as alleged ? If so, its effect? OPD 2 to 4.

9. Whether the printed blank documents were got executed from the defendants as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD

10. Whether defendants No. 2 to 4 stood absolved of their liability, as alleged ? OPD 2 to 4

11. Relief.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under:- Issue No. 5: Since this issue pertains to the very jurisdiction of this Court, the same is being taken up first.

8. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff-Bank that an equitable mortgage qua the landed property situated in Haridwar was created in its favour by defenda