Satish Chandra, C. J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dismissing an application filed under Sections 10/151 C.P.C. praying that proceedings in suit no. 293 of 1978 pending in the courts at Agra be stayed.
(2.) IT appears that the applicant took some loan from the City Bank. On failure to pay the loan, the City Bank instituted a suit for recovery of the money on foot of a pronote in the Bombay High Court in 1976 under Order 37 C.P.C. That suit was still pending when in 1978 the City Bank filed the present suit in the courts at Agra for a preliminary decree for sale under Order 34 Rule 4 for enforcing the equitable mortgage in favour of the bank to secure the same loan. During the pendency of the suit at Agra, the defendant applied for its stay under Section 10/151 C.P.C. The Court has rightly found that the cause of action in the two suits was different, the parties were also not identical because in the suit at Agra three more parties were impleaded. Those parties were not parties in the Bombay suit. The Bombay suit was under Order 37 on foot of a promissory note. Order 37 prescribes summary procedure for determination of such suits based on negotiable instruments. The courts at Bombay had no jurisdiction to try the suit which had beed filed at Agra because the properties sought to be sold under the equitable mortgage were all situate at Agra over which the Bombay courts had no jurisdiction. IT is apparent that the conditions mentioned in Section 10 C.P.C. are not at all fulfilled. This section is hence not applicable. Learned counsel stressed that the suit should have been stayed under Section 151 C.P.C. In the course of arguments the learned counsel relied on Order 34, Rule 14 C.P.C. which provides :- "Suit for sale necessary for bringing mortgaged property to sale- (1) Where a mortgagee has obtained a decree for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage, he shall not be entitled to bring the mortgaged property to sale otherwise than by instituting a suit for sale in enforcement of the mortgage, and he may institute such suit notwithstanding anything contained in Order II, Rule 2". This rule bars the sale of mortgaged property otherwise than by a decree to that end. Such a sale is barred in execution of a money decree, even if a money decree had been obtained by the mortgagee. This rule, however, does not prevent the mortgagee from instituting a regular suit for enforcement of the mortgage and for the relief of sale of mortgaged property even though he may not have obtained a. decree for the payment of the same money to secure which a suit for equitable mortgage has been filed. This rule does not also bar the institution of a regular suit by sale of mortgaged property where a suit has already been instituted for recovery of the loan and that suit is pending. The bar created by Rule 14 is only against the execution of a money decree by putting the mortgaged property to sale. The suit at Agra was not barred by Rule 14 merely because a suit for recovery of money was already pending at Bombay. In my opinion, no valid reason existed why the court should exercise the extraordinary powers under Section 151 C.P.C. to stay further proceedings in the suit even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that Section 151 was in the circumstances applicable.
(3.) THE revision has no substance and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.;