Trial courts must expeditiously decide applications for receivership and vehicle sales following decrees to prevent applications from becoming moot and to mitigate potential financial losses.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 7323/2020 (exemption)

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

CM (M) 231/2020

2. This petition challenges the impugned order dated 17th August, 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.3,65,718.93/- against the Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter, "Defendant") in which initially an application for appointment of Receiver was filed. The case of the Bank is that the Defendant had availed of a vehicle loan of Rs.3,85,000/- in respect of a car i.e., XCENT/BASE CRDI, registered in Haryana, which was disbursed to the Defendant under the loan cum hypothecation scheme of the Bank.

4. The Defendant had agreed to repay the loan amount, along with interest @10.51%, in 48 equal instalments of Rs.9,859/- each. The entire amount had been disbursed to the Defendant. The Trial Court had, vide order dated 2nd January, 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.

5. Since then, the vehicle has been lying in the control of the Bank. Immediately after taking possession of the vehicle, the Bank moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC sometime in January, 2019 itself. Notice was issued in the application. The prayer in the said application reads as under:

"a) direct the plaintiff to sell the said vehicle "XCENT/BASE CRDI" BEARING REGISTRATION NO. "HR 38V 7561" and direct the plaintiff to adjust the sale proceeds towards the outstanding amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff; and

b) pass such other/further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

6. This application continues to remain pending even though the suit itself has now come to be decreed on 17th August, 2019. The Trial Court has passed a decree for a sum of Rs.3,47,403.40/- with interest. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"21. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.3,47,403.40 paise (Rupees Three Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Three and Paise Forty only) along with pendente lite and future interest @6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization."

7. The grievance of the Bank is that despite the application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 CPC having been filed, even in the final decree permission has not been given to the Bank for selling the vehicle.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Bhalla, ld. counsel for the Bank, that the Bank is incurring parking charges for keeping the vehicle. It is further submitted that the suit itself having been decreed, no useful purpose would be served by not selling the vehicle. Ld. counsel also submits that despite orders having been passed in M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Kalkal, [CM(M) 1821/2019, decided on 23rd December, 2019] and M/s. ICICI Bank Limited v. Nidhi Sharma, [CM (M) 1814/2019, decided on 23rd December, 2019], which rely upon ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Kamal Kumar Garewal, [FAO 49/2015, decided on 29th May, 2015], and the same having been placed before the Trial Court, the same were not considered by the Trial Court and the application seeking permission for sale of the vehicle has simply been adjourned.

9. After hearing ld. counsel for the Bank, there