The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Bank should be permitted to sell the vehicle to recover the amount to satisfy the decree, and applications for sale of the vehicle should be disposed of within 60 days, except in case of any unusual or exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) - CM APPL. 1122/2020 (exemption)

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

CM (M) 27/2020

2. This petition challenges the impugned order dated 27 th February, 2019 in view of the fact that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC, which was filed by M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter, "Bank"), has not been decided by the Trial Court, despite the suit itself having been decreed.

3. The background is that the Bank had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.8,33,378.28/- against the Respondents/Defendants (hereinafter, "Defendants") in which initially an application for appointment of Receiver was filed. The case of the Bank is that the Defendants had availed of a vehicle loan of Rs. 7,73,000/- in respect of a car i.e., Ecosport/1.5 P Titanium AT, registered in Haryana, which was disbursed to the Defendants under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of the Bank. The Defendants also availed of a personal loan of Rs. 3,98,000 from the Bank, against the security of the same vehicle, under the Bank''s personal loan cum hypothecation scheme.

4. The Defendants had agreed to repay the loan amount of Rs.7,73,000/-in 60 equal instalments of Rs. 16,612/- each, along with interest @10.49% and the personal loan amount of Rs. 3,98,000 in 36 equal instalments of Rs. 13,752/- each, along with interest @14.77%. The entire amount had been disbursed to the Defendants. The Trial Court had, vide order dated 27 th March, 2018, appointed a Receiver for taking possession of the car. In the said order, the Trial Court appointed one of the Bank officials as the Receiver and directed the seizure of the vehicle. The said order reads as under:

"Issue summons to defendant no.1 through all modes i.e. PF/RC/approved courier/registered post/speed post as well as affixation on filing of PF by the plaintiff within three weeks from today, returnable on 07.08.2018.

An application under Order 40 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff for appointment of receiver. Heard on the application. In view of submissions made by counsel for plaintiff and the averments made in the application, the application is allowed.

It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner financed an amount of Rs. 7,73,000/- to the respondent vide loan agreement dated 10.06.2015 for the purchase of a vehicle namely "ECOSPORT/1.5 P TITANIUM AT" bearing registration No.HR-29AL-2110 and under the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the said vehicle was hypothecated in favour of the petitioner. The loan was to be repayable in 60 monthly installments of Rs. 16,612/-. The defendant also approached the petitioner bank for a personal loan of Rs.3,98,000/- to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs. 13,752/- vide documents executed on 12.01.2017. For the said loan, the plaintiff bank maintained account No.LAFDB00032774134 and SPBGC00035241434. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that defendant in terms of the Loan documents executed had paid an amount of Rs.4,98,360/- (30 EMIS) and defaulted for an amount of Rs. 33,224/- (02 EMIS) and Rs. 10,276/- towards late payment and cheque bouncing charges besides future instalments of Rs.4,61,748/- against the loan account no.LAFDB00032774134. The defendant has paid Rs.1,23,768/- (09 EMIs) and defaulted in repayment of Rs.55,008/- (04 EMIS) towards equated cheque bouncing charges against the loan account No. SPBGC00035241434 as on 13.02.2018. The plaintiff in terms of the loan documents executed by the defendant, issued a notice dated 16.11.2017 upon the defendant calling to repay the loan amount. Prayer has been made for appointment of Mr. Neeraj Singh, Representative of the petitioner as the receiver to take possession of the vehicle in question. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, and for the preservance of hypothecated vehicle, I consider it just and convenient to appoint Mr. Neeraj Singh as a Receiver to take ex-parte ad-interim possession of the hypoth