Dua J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi dated 22nd January, 1966 whereby he appointed Jatinde r. Nath Verma, Advocate, receiver in this-case to take possession of the vehicle. ( 2 ) I he learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his client is in possession of the vehicle and appointment of receiver would deprive him of the use of. the vehicle. According to him, the Court below has no-power under the Jaw to appoint a receiver because Schedule II of Indian Arbitration Act has to be read along with the provisions of Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with the appointment of receivers. In my-opinion, the objection is untenable because section 41, Indian Arbitration Act read with items I and 4 of the Second Schedule- to that Act fully empower the Court to make orders of appointment of receivers. Order 40, Code of Civil Procedure, also does not, in my opinion, militate against ,this power. In the impugned order, it has been observed that in, the case of a hire purchase agreement in respect of the vehicle, the present petitioner wa$ to. remain a bailee until payment of the instalment envisaged therein. If the present petitioner is allowed to ply the vehicle, it is likely to suffer damage and it is for the purpose of safeguarding the said vehicle that the prayer for appointment-of receiver was made. After considering all the various aspects, which where relevant, the Court considered it appropriate to appoint receiver and before me nothing congent has been said which would show that the impugned order is tainted with any jurisdictional infirmity or with any material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction justifying revision. ( 3 ) THE present revision thus fails and is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.