( 1 ) THE order in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 165 and 166 both of 1982.

( 2 ) THE decision of these three appeals shall turn upon the determination of true scope of Rule 10 of Order 39 of the Civil P. C.

( 3 ) THE appellants in these three appeals are defendants in three suits filed by the respondent Bank for recovery of huge amounts. In all the three cases, the appellants are said to have executed hypothecation bonds in respect of certain properties, including articles of trade. After the institution of the suit, the respondent Bank in its anxiety to enforce speedy recovery of the amount claimed, applied before the lower Court under Rule 10 of Order 39 of the Code for a direction to hand over the articles hypothecated to it. Detailed replies in answer to these applications were filed, The alleged agreement of hypothecation of goods in favour of respondent/plaintiff has been specifically denied. In the suit giving rise to Miscellaneous Appeal number 164 of 1982, the hypothecation is said to be only imaginary and it is asserted that 'the relevant time, the appellants were not even possessed of the articles said to be hypo