Short Note : The respondent No. 1 Bank filed two suits for recovery of loans advanced on the hypothecation of two trucks. In one suit, the amounts due, according to the Bank, is Rs. 1,37,298.28 Nps. The loans were in fact paid for purchase of the trucks. The appellant-borrower was granted facility to pay the amount by monthly instalments. He paid a few instalments and then stopped paying. 2. The Bank applied to the Court for seizure of the trucks and to sell them. The applications purported to be under the provisions of Order 38, rule 5 read with Order 39, rule 6 and S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The Court was of the view that the provisions of Order 38, rule 5, CPC and Order 39, rule 6 CPC were not attracted. However, the Court directed the appellant to deliver the suit trucks to the Bank within 10 days which the Bank was to hold as pledgee; the trucks to be sold as and when the Court directed. This order, the Court said, could be passed under Order 39, rules 7 and 10 of the Code. The borrower has come up in appeal. Held: The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the meaning of "hypothecation". Though possession of the hypothecated property remains with the borrower, the borrower holds it in trust for the creditor and the creditor has a right to retain possession and exercise his right of private sale to satisfy the loan advanced. If the creditor could demand possession of the hypothecated goods, sell them and sue for the balance, and all this could be done privately, there appears nothing to prohibit the creditor from claiming such a relief as an interim measure through the agency of the Court. In doing so, the creditor cannot be said to be retaining the pledged property and also maintain a suit for recovery of money. In fact, the creditor would be bound to give credit for the sale proceeds and maintain the claim for the balance only. The Court while passing a decree would definitely take into account the money recovered by sale of the hypothecated property. 4. To say that no property is involved in suit for recovery of loan advanced on hypothecation of goods, would be wrong. The property is very much involved. The Court while passing a decree would definitely take into account the money recovered by sale of the hypothecated property. 4. To say that no property is involved in suit for recovery of loan advanced on hypothecation of goods, would be wrong. The property is very much involved. The hypothecatee is supposed to be in legal possession and custody of the property though the physical possession is with the borrower. The hypothecatee can exercise his right of sale either privately or through Court. 5. Order 39, rule 10 CPC is the provision attracted. The borrower admittedly holds the trucks in trust for the creditor Bank. He has been rightly called upon to deliver the trucks to the Bank subject to further direction of the Court. The rule is attracted since there is admission on the part of borrower, at least in so far as the principal amount due is concerned, and on the fact that the loan was borrowed on hypothecation of trucks, and decree for the admitted claim could at once follow in satisfaction of which the Court could also direct sale of the trucks. AIR 1969 Mysore 280, AIR 1971 SC 1210 and 1977 JLJ 839 relied on. Appeals dismissed.