In this batch of revisions, common questions of fact and law arise. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common order.

2. The petitioners are different, but respondents are common to all the revisions. The petitioners filed various suits against the 2nd respondent in different Courts. The suits were decreed and the decrees are said to have become final. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.34 of 2004 against the 2nd respondent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. The suit was decreed, and since the 2nd respondent did not satisfy the decree, he filed E.P.No.15 of 2006. An item of immovable property was brought to sale on 09-09-2009, which fetched a sum of Rs. 15,60,000/-. The decree in O.S.No.34 of 2004 is said to be for a sum, below Rs. 2 lakhs. The petitioners filed applications under Section 73 read with Section 151 CP.C, in E.P.No.15 of 2006, seeking rateable distribution of the balance of the sale proceeds, after the liability under the decree, in O.S.No.34 of 2004 is satisfied.

3. The applications were opposed mainly by the 1st respondent. According to him, the claims made by the petitioners do not fall within the scope of Section 73 of C.P.C The trial Court dismissed the applications through individual orders, dated 17-09-2009. Hence these revisions.

4. Sri I. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed execution petitions, much before the property in question was brought to sale, in E.P.No.15 of 2006, and thereby, they have complied with Section 73 of CP.C He contends that the view taken by the trial Court, that the applications claiming rateable distribution, ought to have been filed before the property is brought to sale; is untenable in law. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Gopavarapu Ramalinga Swamy v. Nimmala Kondalu and another (1) 2009 (6) AL T 204.

5. Though notice was served upon the 151 respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance.

6. The 2nd respondent appears to be a highly indebted person. He borrowed indiscriminately, from various persons, and failed to repay the amounts. Fairly large number of suits were filed, and all of them were decreed. In respect of almost every decree, an execution petition was filed.

7. The 1st respondent too obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent, by filing O.S.No.34 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. The decree became final and he filed E.P.No.15 of 2006. An item of immovable property was brought to sale, and it fetched a sum of Rs. 15,60,000/- The value of the decree obtained by him appears to be for a sum, below Rs. 2 lakhs. The amounts covered by the respective decrees obtained by the petitioners, in various decrees, are below Rs. 1 lakh. On coming to know that an item of immovable property was sold, and it fetched substantial amount, the petitioners filed applications under Section 73 of C.P.C. The only person, who could have objected to the applications, filed by the petitioners, was, the 2nd respondent. The 151 respondent should not have any grievance, once the amount, covered by the decree, in his favour is realized. Curiously, he opposed the applications filed by the petitioners. The trial Court ought not to have entertained his objection, at all, once the 2nd respondent has chosen, not to resist the applications.

8. The Executing Court placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court, in Sannidhi Krishna Murthy and another v. Ponipireddy Venkata Rao and others (2) 2009 (6) ALT 498. As in the instant case, in that case also, applications were filed by the holders of decrees, for rateable distribution of the left over sale proceeds. This Court took the view that, unless the application was made before the Executing Court, had received the assets, rateable distribution cannot be ordered. This observation, however, does not appear to be, in consonance with the text of Section 73 of C.P.C The provision reads as under:

“Sec.73: Proceeds of execution-sale to be rateably distribu