SAT PAL ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed ly the plaintiff under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of Receiver to make an inventory of the stock and machineries hypothecated to the plaintiff bank and stored in the factory premises of the defendant No. l company at 12/2, Mile Stone, Indraprastha Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Faridabad. It has also been prayed in this application that the Receiver should be permitted to sell the same. Notice of this application was given. to respondents/ defendants through counsel on 20th January, 1992 for 26th February, 1992. It may be pointed out here that defendants No. 2, 3 and 6 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12th March, 1979 and defendants 1 and 7 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19th July, 1979. ( 2 ) REPLY to the. application has been filed on behalf of defendants 4 and 5 and the learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 had been appearing upto 28th January, 1993, but thereafter he did not appear on 21st July, 1993, 26th August, 1993 and again on 13th October, 1993 when the arguments on this application were heard. In the reply filed on behalf of defendants 4 and 5 it has been submitted that there is no necessity to allow this application as none of the defendants has ever objected to taking over of the factory with all assets by the plaintiff till date. It has also been stated in the reply that the suit itself is not maintainable and as such the application is also not maintainable. It has further been stated that the defendants had already sufferred the losses and they cannot be further burdened with the Receiver costs and expenses. I, however, find that the aforesaid reply filed on behalf of defendants 4 and 5 is not accompanied by any affidavit in support of the averments made in this reply. Accordingly, the averments made in this reply cannot be relied upon. ( 3 ) MS. Ritu Bhalla, learned consel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 have already been proceeded against. ex-parte and the learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 has also not been appearing since 28th January, 1993. Accordingly, the averments made in this reply cannot be relied upon. ( 3 ) MS. Ritu Bhalla, learned consel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 have already been proceeded against. ex-parte and the learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 has also not been appearing since 28th January, 1993. She further submitted that in terms of the hypothecation agreements, the hypothecated machineries shall carry a first charge of the plaintiff bank for the satisfaction/repayment of the outstandings in the A/c. of defendant No. l and similarly in terms of the pledge agreement, the pledge goods shall be placed in bank s possession and under their control in such a manner that such possession and control may be apparent and indisputable. Learned counsel also drew my attention to paras 8 and 9 of the application wherein it has been stated that a portion of the land on which the factory of the defendant No. l is situated has been purchased by M/s. Dr. Arjun D. Sehgal and Sons who are likely to construct a building and once the construction work starts, the machineries and goods hypothecated/pledged with the plaintiff bank would be exposed to ruination. She further submitted that the shed where the machineries and stocks were lying in a dilapidated condition and there was apprehension of even theft and loss of the machineries and goods. ( 4 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the records. As stated earlier, the defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 have already been proceeded against ex- parte and none is appearing even on behalf of defendants 4 and 5 since January, 1993. Though a reply to the application has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, but as stated herein above the everments made in the said reply cannot be relied upon. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to protect the interest of the plaintiff bank, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for appointment of a receiver. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to protect the interest of the plaintiff bank, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for appointment of a receiver. Accordingly, the application is allowed and I appoint Shri Pawan Kumar Behl, Advocate Chamber No. 328, High Court Chambers, as receiver who shall make an inventory of stocks and machineries hypothecated to the plaintiff bank and stored in the shed of the factory premises of the company at 12/2, Mile Stone, Indraprastha Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Faridabad. The Receiver is further directed to take charge of the machinery and other hypothecated goods and give them on Superdari to the Branch Manager, Okhia Industrial Estate Branch of the Plaintiff Bank. He is also permitted to sell the said machinery and goods. He will, however, sell the stocks and machineries after notice to the respondents and if anyone of the respondents is able to get a better price for the machineries and goods, the receiver shall sell the same to such party. The fees of the receiver is fixed at Rs. 5000. 00 (Rs. Five thousand) initially to be paid by the plaintiff Bank- The receiver is further directed to submit his report within three months.