Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A. Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 (sic. 2) and also the learned Advocate General, on Court notice.

2. The petitioner, who is an unsuccessful claim petitioner, files this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the orders rejecting an application filed by him purporting to be under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC setting up a claim, as per the orders in E.A.No.224 of 2001 in E.P.No.86 of 1999 in O.S.No.873 of 1998 dated 23-4-2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent No.1 herein is a decree-holder, who filed the present execution petition on 31-3-1999 in pursuance of a decree obtained in a suit seeking for specific performance of the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the respondent No.2 herein, in respect of suit schedule property consisting of a house situated at Rethi Bowli, Hyderabad. The respondent No.2, who is the judgment debtor, had filed an insolvency petition in I.P.No.44 of 1998, inter alia, on the allegation that there exists a liability for a sum of Rs.99 lakhs payable to 75 creditors, which include the respondent No.1/Decree Holder and Charminar Co-operative Bank, as one amongst them. However, the said I.P. was dismissed. During the pendency of the said I.P., a receiver was appointed. However, now the claim of the petitioner in the application filed in the Court below is that having regard to the said proceedings, the property cannot be proceeded against for any such transfer in pursuance of such decree. On contest, the Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the I.P., is no more pending and therefore, the question of entertaining any claim of the petitioner or any objection as such, is unsustainable. Hence, this revision.

4. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that having regard to the insolvency proceedings which have been initiated, where an official receiver was appointed, the said proceedings must have its own logical end and mere dismissal of the insolvency petition, would not itself undo the steps which have to be taken even by the Official Receiver and apart from the fact that any such transfer in favour of one of the creditors by an insolvent is fraudulent and would affect the claims of other creditors. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner in the claim is perfectly justified and there should not have been any such execution of the decree.

5. These submissions sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondent that there is absolutely no justifiable claim on behalf of the petitioner, much less an objection, hence sought for dismissal of the revision.

6. Having heard the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material, it is seen that the main objection on behalf of the petitioner, who is a third party, as a claim petitioner is in regard to insolvency proceedings, which have been initiated by respondent No.2 and therefore, the execution should not have been proceeded with without proper interdiction of insolvency proceedings. However, as pointed out in the Court below and during the course of arguments, since the I. P., was dismissed and therefore, it was held that no such objection is sustainable. It was pointed out that though a receiver was appointed in the said insolvency proceedings, it was treated as if the receiver no longer continues in view of the dismissal of the I.P., and in fact, no further steps are being taken up by said receiver.

7. Interestingly, during the course of the arguments, it has been pointed out that in this particular district unit, no official receiver has been appointed as contemplated under the Provincial Insolvency Act and therefore, it is only the individual Receivers are being appointed in each of