LAWS(DLH)-2018-8-88

ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

Decided On August 06, 2018
ICICI BANK LIMITED Appellant
V/S
RANDHIR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present appeal, the appellant assails the impugned order dated 30.5.2018 of the learned Trial Court in CS No. 1813/18 whereby on a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery along with an application Under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appointment of a receiver to take over the possession of the vehicle, i.e., car make " Duster Diesel 110 PS/RXL" bearing registration No. UP 16 AS 3244, the learned Trial Court directed the issuance of the summons for settlement of issues along with the notice of the said application to the defendant returnable for 9.10.2018.

(2.) The prayer made by the appellant herein as plaintiff to the said suit seeking appointment of an ex parte receiver was declined by the learned Trial Court, it having been observed to the effect that as per the averments made in the plaint a loan of Rs. 9,25,000/- had been given by the plaintiff,i.e., the appellant herein to the defendant/respondent herein, for purchase of the vehicle in question vide a loan agreement No. LADEL00027456387 and that the said loan was to be paid in 60 EMIs of Rs. 20,228/- each but the respondent, i.e., the defendant had paid only 45 EMIs and defaulted in payment of six EMIs and thus the plaintiff i.e., the petitioner herein had recalled the said loan amount vide notice dated 17.2018 requesting the respondent i.e., the defendant herein to pay the outstanding amount and also to hand over the possession of the said vehicle but the respondent despite service of the notice neither paid the loan amount nor handed over the possession of the vehicle and that there is an apprehension that the respondent may dispose of the security, i.e., vehicle in question which would cause irreparable loss to the appellant and thus sought an appointment of a receiver to take possession of the vehicle in question.

(3.) The learned Trial Court observed to the effect that as the defendant admittedly had paid 45 installments it was not considered appropriate at this stage to appoint an ex parte receiver.