- (1.) The respondent is a scheduled bank (non-nationalised). The first appellant is a sole proprietary concern. The second appellant is the proprietor of the first appellant. In January, 1990 the respondent filed a suit, for recovery of its dues, against the appellants. According to the respondent the appellants were sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs. 3,50,000/- for which purpose a demand promissory note dated 17-8-1985 was executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent. A deed of hypothecation dated 17-8-1985 hypothecating the stock of raw-materials and finished goods and a deed of mortgage of property dated 14-8-1985 mortgaging the appellant's bungalow situated in Andheri (West) and a few other documents are also said to have been executed by appellants in favour of respondent. On 24th January, 1990 an amount of Rs. 7,61,798.68 P. was allegedly outstanding against the appellants for the recovery whereof a suit on the Original Side of High Court of Bombay was filed by the respondent.
(2.) On 3rd March, 1995 a learned Single Judge, sitting on the Original Side, passed a decree under Order 8, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. against the appellants "in terms of prayer clauses (a), (c)(ii), (d)(i) and (i)" with costs quantified at Rs. 4026/-. The decree read with the prayer clause of the plaint, briefly stated, shows that following reliefs were granted by the Court to the respondent against the appellants :- a) The defendants were ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 7,61,786.68 p. 'together with interest thereon at the rate of 19.5% per annum compounded quarterly or at such other rate as the Court may deem fit and proper from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment or realisation.' (c)(ii) appointment of Receiver on the bungalow situated in Andheri West. (d)(i) an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession over the abovesaid bungalow. (i) costs of the suit.
(3.) On 24th November, 1997 the learned Single Judge on a motion made by the respondent and without issuing any notice to the appellants passed the following order :- "Order dated March 3, 1995 stands modified to the extent that in the order in place of prayers (c)(ii) and (d)(i), the same should read as prayers (h)(i) and (b)(ii), (e), (f) and (i). Court receiver appointed in execution of decree.";