1. - Instant petition has been filed assailing ex parte order dated 08/02/2008 (Ann.5) passed by learned trial Judge (Addl. District Judge NO.4, Jaipur City ) on application (No.219/2008) filed by respondent-Co., Under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act, 1996").

2. From the material, it has come on record that vehicle (RJ-14-P-7991) was financed by respondent-Company in favour of petitioner for principal amount of Rs. 2.75 lacs for being repayable in 36 equal monthly installments ("EMI") with each EMI of Rs. 11,000/-. Statement of account in respect of present vehicle has been placed on record as Annexure R/1 - according to which, 1st EMI was paid on 15/01/2006 and petitioner continuously paid only nine EMIs upto 16/01/2007 and Rs. 80,000/- was deposited upto 10/03/08; however, thereafter no payment was made towards repayment of loan amount; and since there being a provision for invoking arbitration proceedings under Cl.22 of the agreement (Ann.R.5), therefore, as an interim arrangement to safeguard the vehicle financed by respondent-Co., an application was filed Under section 9 of the Act, 1996; and taking note of finance amount & repayment made by petitioner besides balance amount of outstanding dues, ex parte order was passed by learned trial Judge on 08/02/2008 (Ann.5) for appointment of Receiver in exercise of powers and notice was issued to the petitioner. Certainly after the notice could be served, petitioner is having an opportunity to make submission but at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instant petition; and while issuing notices, this Court passed interim order dated 26/11/2008 that operation of order dated 08/02/2008 (Ann.5) shall remain stayed and the petitioner was directed not to alienate the disputed vehicle.

3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the for invoking section 9 of the Act, 1996, there has to be a manifest intention of the financing company (applicant) prima facie being established from pleadings on record, to take recourse to the arbitral proceedings or that there is an arbitral dispute requiring initiating proceedings under the Act, 1996; however, order impugned herein does not disclose prima facie material having been looked into and it being manifest from material on record. Counsel submits that the order impugned in the light of judgment of Apex Court in M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd v. M/s NEPC India Ltd. (AIR 1999 SC 565) , is not legally sustainable.

4. Per contra, Counsel for respondent-Co., submits that after the vehicle was financed, stipulating 36 EMIs each of Rs. 11,000/-, petitioner paid only nine EMIs and thereafter discontinued to make repayment however, at one time, only Rs. 80,000/- were deposited up to 10/03/2008, thereafter no payment was made and taking note of provisions of arbitration under Cl.22 of the agreement, to safe guard the interest, application was filed Under section 9 of the Act, 1996 and taking note of material on record, the trial Judge was justified while passing ex-parte order impugned. Counsel submits that petitioner has an opportunity to submit his arguments before the trial Judge pursuant to the notice being served upon him ; and what has been urge by Counsel for petitioner will certainly be taken note of and examined by the court below while taking final decision on the pending application Under section 9 of the Act, 1996; and at the same time, Counsel submits that the order impugned is appealable Under section 31 of the Act.

5. However, Counsel further submits that statement of Account (Ann.R.1) certainly remains uncontroverted and the defence having been taken by the petitioner about amount being paid of Rs. 3.50 lacs - reference whereof has been made in his letter (Ann.R/2) was in fact with respect to another vehicle (RJ-14-P-8853) which is not in any manner relates to the present vehicle for which the dispute has arisen for consideration under proceedings vide order impugned.

6. This Court has consider