C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.

1. These four civil revision petitions, arising out of separate but identical orders, came to be placed before us on a reference made by a learned single judge by common order dated 15.6.2009 in this batch of civil revision petitions.

2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of these revision petitions, are stated hereunder:

The petitioners filed O.S. Nos. 73 of 2000 and 3 of 2002 against respondent No. 2, in all these revisions, for recovery of certain amounts. Both these suits were decreed, on 23-04-2001 and 11-06-2002 respectively. The petitioners have filed E.P. Nos. 39 of 2001 and 21 of 2005 for execution of the decrees by sale of the property of respondent No. 2-judgment debtor. Respondent No. 1 in these revisions filed O.S. Nos. 223 and 228 of 1998 against respondent No. 2. These suits were also decreed. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 223 of 1998 filed E.A. No. 195 of 2005 in E.P. No. 39 of 2001 and E.A. No. 239 of 2005 in E.P. No. 21 of 2005 and the decree-holder in O.S. No. 228 of 1998 filed E.A. No. 197 of 2005 in E.P. No. 39 of 2001 and E.A. No. 238 of 2005 in E.P. No. 21 of 2005. They filed these applications under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, C.P.C.) for rateable distribution of the amounts available with the execution Court in all the above mentioned suits. The petitioners have opposed these applications on the ground that respondent No. 1 in both the cases have not complied with the fundamental requirement of the provisions of Section 73 of C.P.C. namely; filing of execution petitions for execution of decrees obtained in their favour and that, therefore, they are not entitled for rateable distribution. The execution Court, however, rejected this objection and allowed the four E.As. The sole basis for allowing the E.As. by the execution Court was the ratio in the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in Jagadish Vaishnav v. Farpos Leading Cateror and others, 2002 (4) ALT 718. Assailing these orders, the petitioners filed all these revision petitions.

3. When the cases were heard by the learned single judge, he has noticed conflicting judgments between Jagadish Vaishnav (1 supra) and E. Subba Reddy v. G. Dhananjay and another, 2006 (6) ALD 244 and Kanakam Srinivasa Rao v. Ganga Venkateswara Rao and another, 2002 (6) ALD 169. Having noticed the divergence of opinions expressed by different learned single Judges of this Court, the learned judge framed the following point for reference:

"Whether filing of an execution application by a decree-holder is a condition precedent for filing petition under Section 73 C.P.C. for rateable distribution of the amounts deposited in another execution petition."

4. Before referring to the case law on the aspect, it is instructive to consider:-

Section 73 of C.P.C., which reads as under:

"Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realization, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons."

A plain reading of Section 73 of C.P.C. would reveal that in order to claim rateable distribution of assets, the following requirements need to be fulfilled:

(a) The judgment-debtor must be common;

(b) A Court must hold assets;

(c) Before receipt of such assets by the Court, the applicant, for rateable distribution, must have made an application to the Court for execution of the decree for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor; and

(d) The applicant has not obtained satisfaction of the decree.

5. In Katikala Subbayyamma v. Penmetsa Bangarraju and another, AIR 1961 AP 422, against a common judgment-debtor, two separate decrees were obtained by different creditors. When one of the decree-holders filed an application under Section 73 of C.P.C. for ratea