by the learned Trial Court, it having been observed to the effect that as per the averments made in the plaint a loan of Rs.6,27,688.00 had been given by the plaintiff, i.e., the appellant herein to the defendant/respondent herein, for purchase of the vehicle in question vide a loan agreement No. LAGHZ00032211008 and that the said loan was to be paid in 60 EMIs of Rs.13,460/- each but the respondent, i.e., the defendant had paid only 29 EMIs and defaulted in payment of seven EMIs and thus the plaintiff i.e., the petitioner herein had recalled the said loan amount vide notice dated 12.01.2018 requesting the respondent i.e., the defendant herein to pay the outstanding amount and also to hand over the possession of the said vehicle but the respondent despite service of the notice neither paid the loan amount nor handed over the possession of the vehicle and that there is an apprehension that the respondent may dispose of the security, i.e., vehicle in question which would cause irreparable loss to the appellant and thus sought an appointment of a receiver to take possession of the vehicle in question. 3. The learned Trial Court observed to the effect that as the defendant admittedly had paid 2 9 instalments it was not considered appropriate at this stage to appoint an ex parte receiver. 4. The grievance of the appellant through the present appeal is thus to the effect that the respondent had executed a credit facility application along with the terms and conditions of the loan; a deed of hypothecation and an irrevocable Power of Attorney on 20.04.2015 in favour of the appellant bank and had undertaken to
