Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, dated 18.07.07, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, and, the judgement and decree, dated 17.01.08, rendered by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Rohtak, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, the plaintiffs, were in possession of H. No. 556/29, situated at Tilak Nagar, Rohtak,having boundaries and dimensions of 440 sq. yards. The house, in question, was purchased, from one Angrej Singh son of Hari Narain, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/-, vide registered sale deed. It was stated that the plaintiffs, received a notice, issued by defendant No. 1, stating therein, that plaintiff No. 1, had stood guarantor for defendant No. 2, against the loan advanced, by it (defendant No. 1), and had deposited the original sale deed, in respect thereof, as collateral security. It was further stated that the house, in question, was jointly owned by the plaintiffs. It was further stated that, however, the notice had been issued, only to plaintiff No. 1, stating therein, that it was only he, who had offered his property, as collateral security, by way of deposit of original sale deed. It was further stated that the plaintiffs, never visited the office of defendant No. 1, nor did they deposit the original sale deed, as collateral security, nor they signed any document. It was further stated that the plaintiffs, were having cordial relations, with defendant No. 2, and somewhere, in the year 1994, they visited his house. It was further stated that, at that time, plaintiff No. 1, was having an envelope, containing the original sale deed of the house, in question, alongwith certain documents. It was further stated that plaintiff No. 1, inadvertently left the envelope, in the house of defendant No. 2, and brought the same, on the next day. It was further stated that plaintiff No. 1, did not open the envelope, in good faith, and kept the same, in safe custody. It was further stated that it was only after receipt of the impugned notice, that he opened the envelope, and was astonished, to see, that instead of the original sale deed, a photocopy thereof, was kept therein. It was further stated that defendant "No. 2, had committed breach of trust and cheated the plaintiffs. It was further stated that no opportunity of being heard, was afforded, to the plaintiffs, before issuance of the notice. It was further stated that the whereabouts of defendant No. 2, were not known. Defendant No. 1, was many a time, asked to treat the impugned notice, as illegal, null and void, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, was filed.

3. Defendant No. 1, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, it took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was admitted that a notice, had been issued to the plaintiff. It was stated that the plaintiffs, stood guarantors of defendant No. 2, against the loan, advanced by defendant No. 1, and, as such, they had mortgaged the house, in question, in its favour, by way of deposit of the sale deed, as collateral security. It was further stated that, besides submitting the aforesaid sale deed, with defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs, also filed an affidavit and other documents. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:-

(i) Whether the notice Annexure A issued by defendant No. 1 is illegal, null, and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

(ii) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in the suit? OPD

(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

(iv) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

(v) Whether the plaintiffs have