( 1 ) THIS Court by a common order dated 20-3-1998 had disposed of Civil revision Petition Nos. 4007, 4008, 4009, 4010 and 4484 of 1997. Against the said order, the present review petitions have been filed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in the aforesaid C. R. Ps. had filed suits against therespondents herein for recovery of certain amounts. The petitioner in the aforesaid C. R. Ps. hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" and the respondents herein referred to as the "defendants". The suits filed by the plaintiff were decreed. Then the plaintiff filed execution proceedings in the Court of the principal District Munsif, Warangal for recovery of the amounts due under different decrees by attaching whole properties of the judgment-debtors under order 21 Rule 43 (sic. 54) C. P. C. The Executing Court dismissed all the execution Petitions i. e. , E. P. No. 173/95 in O. S. No. 685 of 1984, E. P. No. 170 of 1995 in O. S. No. 682/1984, E. P. No. 171/1995 in O. S. No. 683 of 1984, E. P. No. 169 of 1995 in O. S. No. 681/1984 and E. P. No. 172 of 1995 in O. S. No. 684 of 1984 on the ground that the respondents have been already declared as insolvents and in the insolvency proceedings, the Receiver was appointed and he had taken possession of all the properties of the defendants-judgment- debtors and he is likely to make equal distribution of the assets of the defendants to different creditors as per the provisions of Insolvency Act. The defendants were declared as insolvents in I. P. No. 10 of 1984 and E. P. No. 11 of 1984 and as such the plaintiff cannot execute the decree independently. The said view was upheld by this Court and all the revisions against the order passed in the execution proceedings as mentioned above were disposed of. It is also to be noted that when the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants, he had secured the order of attachment before judgment. Now the aforesaid review petitions have been filed by the plaintiff to review the earlier order.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. S. Ashok Anand Kumar appearing on behalfof the plaintiff submitted at the Bar that it may be a fact that the defendants were declared as insolvents, but the plaintiff secured a decree against the defendants, which is a secured debt, and therefore it can be executed against the insolvents.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the review petitioner i. e. , the plaintiff in all thesuits, invited my attention to Section 2 (e) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, which reads as under:" secured Creditor means a person holding a mortgage, charge or lien on the property of the debtor or any part thereof as a security for a debt due to him from the debtor;"my attention was also invited to Section 28 (6) of the Provincial Insolvency act, which reads as under:"28 (6): Nothing in this Section shall affect the power of any secured creditor to realise or otherwise deal with his security, in the same manner as he would have been entitled to realise or deal with it if this Section had not been passed. "

( 5 ) CONSIDERING the above provisions of law, this Court is of the consideredview that the plaintiff is entitled to execute the decrees against the defendants as he was a secured creditor as defined in Section 2 (e) read with Section 28 (6) of the Provincial Insolvency Act.

( 6 ) WHILE arguing the aforesaid Civil Revision Petitions, the above legalprovisions were not brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

( 7 ) THE order obtained by the plaintiff attaching the properties of thedefendants under Order 38 Rule 5 C. P. C. continues to exist even after passing of the decree. The aforesaid view gets support in a ruling reported in Smt. Pushpamala Jain vs. Batik of Baroda and others. In para (6) of the said judgment, their Lordships were pleased to hold as under:"6. Order XXXVIII Rule 11 of the Code provides that where property is under attachment before judgment and a decree is subsequently passed in favour of the pl