JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 28.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Suit No. 50/2007 in Application No. 445 titled as ICICI Bnak Ltd. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellant is a Bank and body incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Bank filed a suit under Order 37 C.P.C., which is pending before the learned trial Court and an application under Order 40, Rule 1 C.P.C. for appointment of a Receiver to take over the possession of the vehicle namely Maruti ALTO/LX Car bearing registration No. RJ-23CA-0378 was filed. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments declined to appoint receiver ex- parte, hence, the present appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed before me. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent made a request for financing the vehicle under the loan-cum- hypothetical scheme. The amount which was requested was Rs. 2,55,000/-. The appellant-Bank sanctioned the loan and an agreement in that behalf was also executed along with other documents. The amount of loan was to be paid in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 6289/-, which has not been paid. It is submitted that presently more than half the amount is outstanding and in spite of assurance given by the respondent he has failed to make equated monthly installments. It is submitted that notice was also issued either to repay the outstanding loan amount or hand over the possession of the vehicle. It is submitted that the factual aspect of the matter is clearly established on the basis of material which was placed before the learned trial Court and also placed before this Court that respondent has stopped making payment of loan amount, which was sanctioned to the respondent on 29.7.2005. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appeal required to be disposed of finally at this stage. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appeal required to be disposed of finally at this stage. It is also submitted that in case notice is issued to respondent then he may disposed of the vehicle and thereafter it will be difficult to take possession of the vehicle and it will be a loss to public money. The learned counsel in support of the submission has placed reliance on various decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in similar type of matters. 5. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel being discussed below: 1. In the matter of Bhupinder Singh v. Citi Bank (FAO No. 198/2006) : The respondent was advanced a loan for purchase of a vehicle namely Toyota Corolla, the amount sanctioned was Rs. 8,16,864/- and was to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs. 17,362/-. The respondent paid amount of Rs. 3,47,396.41 towards principal and Rs. 1,60,678.87 towards interest. The respondent made default in making payment of 4 installments as on July, 2006. As a result of which the loan was recalled according to terms of Clause 7(18) of loan agreement. An application was filed as balance amount of loan was not paid under Order 40, Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking an ex paste order for appointment of its officer as Receiver to take the custody of the vehicle. The learned trial Court while declining the prayer relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Manoharan v. Smt. D. Jayakumari & Ors. (UJ (SC) 13). The learned trial Court was of the view that no order could be made for appointment Receiver unless a notice was served on the opposite party. The Delhi High Court found that since in R. Manoharan's case the order was passed with the consent of the parties and there appears no mention in that case that no ex-parte order appointment an employee as a Receiver, even where the situation so warrants, could be passed without notice to the opposite side. In the above circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal and passed the ex-parte order and appointed one Mr. In the above circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal and passed the ex-parte order and appointed one Mr. Nitin Vyas Field Representative of the appellant Bank as Receiver to take over possession of the vehicle in question from the respondent or anyone found in possession thereof and to keep the same in his safe custody and not to dispose of without orders of the learned trial Court in that respect. 2. In the matter of CITI Bank v. Udesh Kumar (FAO (OS) No. 117/2002) : The vehicle was financed by the Bank under loan agreement scheme the respondent made default in making payment of equitable monthly installments and cheques issued by the respondent were bounced, therefore, on the basis of material placed before the Court it was held that in case ex-parte ad interim order for appointment of receiver is not made then entire purpose of filing of the suit is likely to become infructuous and the Officers of the appellant-Bank was appointed to take custody of the vehicle in question and to keep the same under his charge and further it was ordered that in case any police aid will be required, it will be permissible for the Officers/ representatives to seek such aid in order to enable them to take possession and on obtaining possession of the vehicle will issue appropriate receipt to the person from whose custody the vehicle is taken and will also note down therein the condition of the vehicle and will ensure that the vehicle is kept in the same condition. 3. In the matter of M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Kaptan Singh (FAO No.42/2007) : The Bank filed a suit under Order 37 of the C.P.C. along with an application under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. before the trial Court. The appellant Bank had advanced a loan to the defendant-respondent for purchase of vehicle in respect of which hypothecation-cum-loan agreement was executed. The defendant did not pay even a single penny, towards loan amount. The learned trial Court dismissed the application. The Hon'ble High Court after taking into consideration the various authorities appointed Receiver to take over the possession of the vehicle to keep the same under his charge. It was also permitted to take possession of the vehicle in question. 4. The defendant did not pay even a single penny, towards loan amount. The learned trial Court dismissed the application. The Hon'ble High Court after taking into consideration the various authorities appointed Receiver to take over the possession of the vehicle to keep the same under his charge. It was also permitted to take possession of the vehicle in question. 4. In the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Devender Magar (CRP No. 223/2004) : The Bank filed a suit for recovery on the ground that the equated monthly installments towards vehicle had not been paid by the defendant and default was committed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court decided the matter ex-parte without notice to the other side in favour of the Bank. A Receiver was appointed and police aid was also permitted. 5. In the case of M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Devdnder Tyagi (FAO No. 263/2007) : The learned Additional District Judge declined the request of the Bank to appoint an ex-parte Receiver. The matter was challenged before the Delhi High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and appointed the Receiver. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and carefully gone though the law cited before me. The authorities cited before me almost similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case also the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City has declined to appoint Receiver for the reason that after perusal of application for appointment of Receiver and further since in the plaint it has not been stated as how many installments were not paid and registration of motor vehicle was not submitted, therefore, it was not desirable to pass an ex-parte order for appointment of Receiver. The apprehension of the plaintiff that defendant shall take away the vehicle is of no significance.It is to be seen that the authorities, which have been cited clearly show that in such type of matters, the vehicles financed by the Bank and equated installments to be paid were not paid orders for appointment of receiver were passed without notice to the respondent. In the cases cited above installments were paid of more than half amount of the loan and thereafter default was made in taking payment towards the due installments then on moving application before the competent Court under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. for appointment of Receiver those application were rejected at the initial stage by the learned trial Court and thereafter on appeal the Delhi High Court not in one case, but in several cases taking into consideration the decisions rendered by the Apex Court allowed the appeals /revisions petition and passed orders for appointment of Receiver. 7. A perusal of the material placed before me indicates without any manner of doubt that the vehicle in question was financed in the year 2005 and the installments were/are not being paid regularly. The respondent has presently stopped making payment towards installments due for long time. Notice was also issued to him but he did not brother to even reply the same. Copy of the agreements also that the vehicle was financed by the appellant Bank under certain terms and conditions which have not been complied with. in the above circumstances, taking into consideration the material placed before me, I am of the opinion that this misc. application requires to be allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Application No. 445 in Suit No. 50/2007 dated 28.7.2007 is hereby set aside. I hereby appoint Mr. Narain Charan, representative of the appellant-Bank as a Receiver to take over the possession of the vehicle namely Maruti Alto/Lx Car bearing registration No. RJ-23CA-0378 and to keep the same in his custody. In case any police aid will be required it will be permissible to the appointed Receiver to seek police aid in order to enable him to take possession of the said vehicle. The Receiver on obtaining possession of the vehicle will issue appropriate receipt to the person from whose custody the vehicle is taken and will also note down therein the condition of the vehicle and will ensure that the vehicle is kept in the same condition. The vehicle, thereafter, will be dealt with in accordance with the order to be passed by the learned Additional District Judge, who is seized of this matter. The vehicle, thereafter, will be dealt with in accordance with the order to be passed by the learned Additional District Judge, who is seized of this matter. With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of, making it clear that this order is subject to further order, if any, to be passed by the learned Additional District Judge after hearing the respondent. Copy of this judgment be immediately sent to the learned Additional District Judge.Appeal allowed. *******