Short Note : 1. The applicants attached a Bus from the possession of the non-applicant No. 2 firm for realizing Income Tax dues amounting to Rs. 79,100. The non-applicant No. I firm objected to the attachment, claiming to be the owner of the Bus. They said that the Bus was purchased by them from Sardar Jogindersingh on 27-3-1973 and since they had no road permit to ply it, entered into an agreement with the non-applicant No. 2 firm to run the Bus on their permits. The Bus thus was running on the permits held by the non-applicant No. 2 firm though it did not belong to them. 2. In the suit that the non-applicant No. 1-firm filed for declaration and injunction, they prayed for an ad interim order of release of the Bus in their favour till decision of the suit. The trial Court, instead, released the Bus in favour of the non-applicant No. 2-firm upon their giving solvent security for an a mount of Rs. 30,000 and a bond in the like amount and to deposit the income obtained from the Bus in a Bank which amount they were not entitled to withdraw without the orders of the Court and to file monthly return of the income before the Court along with the Bank Pass-Book for scrutiny. 3. It is this order which the applicants challenge in revision. According to them, the interest of the applicants is not sufficiently safeguarded. It usually happens, the applicants say, that the income of the Bus is not honestly disclosed; rather losses are shown. Besides, the applicants were not as much interested in keeping the Bus idle as in the tax recovery. Let the Bus be released, the counsel for the applicants said, unconditionally provided a Bank guarantee for the value of the Bus is given. 4. The counsel for the non-applicant No. 2-firm submits that order of the Court could not be assailed on any ground whatsoever. The non-applicant No. 2's position was almost that of a receiver. The non-applicant No. 2 has been asked to deposit the income in the Bank which they cannot touch except with the leave of the Court. The have to render periodical accounts. They have taken upon themselves the responsibility to produce the Bus whenever called upon by the Court. The non-applicant No. 2's position was almost that of a receiver. The non-applicant No. 2 has been asked to deposit the income in the Bank which they cannot touch except with the leave of the Court. The have to render periodical accounts. They have taken upon themselves the responsibility to produce the Bus whenever called upon by the Court. And all that a receiver under such circumstances, is required to do, is to furnish security for due performance of the job entrusted. The non-applicant No. 2 could not be called upon to give Bank guarantee when they were prepared to give solvent security to the satisfaction of the Court. At best, what the Court may insist upon, is to give a notice to the applicants before the surety bond is accepted so that they make sure that the surety offered is solvent, backed by immovable property worth more than Rs. 30,000. Held : Having heard the counsel, I am of the view that the interests of the applicants have been sufficiently safeguarded in the trial Court's order. The Bus is not required to be kept idle. The Court has not only made the Bus available for recovery of tax but also has made its income available, depending, however, on the ultimate decision of the suit. All that the applicant's need verify is that the non-applicant No. 2 did not dupe them in the offer of the surety. Before the Surety Bond is accepted by the Court, they must receive a notice so that they verify the soundness and solvency of the offer. The solvency, I am prone to direct, should be verified with reference to immovable property owned and possessed by the Surety. Revision dismissed.