( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application of the petitioner for the appointment of a Receiver to seize the equipment namely One number Stanford Eder Hydraulic Excavator Model R 825 LC, Machine Sr. No. 06. 1010/8710 and all other necessary implements and accessories from the possession of the respondents and to keep the same in his safe custody till the decision of the suit.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, which have resulted in the petitioner filing the present application, are that the petitioner, alleging itself to be engaged in the business of hire purchase and leasing, is alleged to have purchased hi-: # :- I. A. 1552/95 in Suit No. 425/95

( 3 ) ONE number Stanford Eder Hydraulic Excavator Model R 825 LC, Machine Sr. No. 06. 1010/8710 with necessary implements and accessories from M/s. Stanford En- gineering Limited, Alwar and had given the same to respondent No. 1 on lease.

( 4 ) WHILE the total value of the excavator was Rs. 23,77,280. 00 , a sum of Rs. 3,57,280. 00 was deposited by respondent No. 1 and the balance amount of Rs. 20,20,000. 00 was paid by means of three cheques between April 10, 1987 to April 27, 1987 by petitioner to M/s. Stanford Engineering Limited. The excavator was directly delivered to respondent No. 1. The Lease Agreement dated 30th March 1987 was entered into between the parties. Under the said agreement, a total amount of Rs. 28,68,500. 00 was to be paid by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner in 36 instalments starting from April 25, 1987. 35 of these instalments were of Rs. 80,000. 00 each and the last instalment was of Rs. 68,500. 00 The instalments were to be paid regularly every month.

( 5 ) FURTHER allegations made in the petition arc that the respondent failed to make payment of the said amount and, therefore, a fresh Lease Agreement was entered into between the parlies on 31st December 1990 whereunder the respondents agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 22,25,000. 00 in 24 monthly instalments commencing from 1st January 1991. First of these instalments was of Rs. 80,000. 00 and remaining 19 instalments were of Rs. 75,000. 00 each. The respondents are alleged to have committed defaults in the payment of instalments which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.

( 6 ) IT is contended that the petitioner company was all along the owner of the equipments and the same had been given to respondent No. 1 only on lease and that on the failure of the respondents to pay the lease money the petitioner has a right to repossess the equipments. The disputes have also arisen according to the petitioner which are liable to be REFERRED TO to arbitration. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for filing of the agreement dated 31st December 1990. in court and to refer the disputes to the arbitrator named therein.

( 7 ) ALONG with the suit, an application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act read with Second Schedule thereto and Order 40 Rule I read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. was also filed for appointment of a Receiver for taking possession of the equipments as they allegedly belong to the petitioner.

( 8 ) THE respondents in the written statement have, at the outset, denied the execution of any Lease Agreement dated 31st December 1990 and the question thereof of the alleged disputes being REFERRED TO to an arbitrator, according to the respondent, did not arise. It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioners had only financed the purchase of the equipments by making the payment of a sum of Rs. 20,20,000. 00 to the supplier with whom respondent No. 1 had booked the equipments and they are the real owners of the machines in question. The right of the petitioners to take possession of the equipments has also been denied. It is also stated that the respondents have already paid a sum of Rs. 28,77,000. 00 to the petitioner and no amount whatsoever is due from the respondents to the petitioner. On the other hand,