ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. NIDHI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

(2.) The present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner/Plaintiff - M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter, "Bank") challenging the impugned order dated 27th November, 2019, by which the ld. Trial Court has simply adjourned the application filed by the Bank under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC, seeking permission to sell the hypothecated vehicle, which is currently in the Bank's custody.

(3.) The Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter, "Defendant") had entered into an agreement for financing of the vehicle. Due to defaults in payment by the Defendant, a suit for recovery was filed by the Bank, along with an application under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, for appointment of a receiver for the hypothecated vehicle, with power to sell. It is submitted that the receiver has already been appointed and the bank official has taken possession of the vehicle. Since the Defendant continued to not appear before Court, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC came to be filed by the Bank seeking permission to sell the vehicle.