1. Heard both sides.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 had initiated insolvency proceedings against the fourth respondent/debtor in I.P.No.11 of 2000 and it is also noted that the respondents 1 to 3 had also filed I.A.No.32 of 2000 seeking for pro-order of attachment prohibiting the garnishees i.e., civil revision petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 from disbursing the amount to an extent of Rs.15,00,000/- payable to the garnishees and to direct that the amount to be deposited into the Court.

3. Initially, in the above said application, it is found that the petitioner and the respondents 5 & 6/garnishees had been set ex parte and it is also found that the petition to set aside the ex parte order was also not entertained, as against which it is also found that C.R.P.No.809 of 2006 had been preferred. In the meanwhile it is also noted that the pro-order of attachment was made absolute in the above said proceedings.

4. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the materials placed, dismissed the I.A.No.32 of 2000 on two grounds i.e., the debtor shown in the insolvency petition and shown in I.A.No.32 of 2000 are different and therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to proceed with the properties of the fourth respondent/creditor in the above said proceedings. The second ground on which the application was dismissed is that the garnishees had initiated surcharge proceedings as against the debtor and appropriated the amount and therefore, I.A.No.32 of 2000 is not entitled for acceptance.

5. It is not in dispute that in I.P.No.11 of 2000, the debtor i.e., fourth respondent herein had been declared as insolvent on 18.08.2005. It is also not in dispute that along with the said I.P.No.11 of 2000, the creditors i.e., respondents 1 to 3 had also preferred I.A.No.32 of 2000 seeking for pro-order of attachment prohibiting the garnishees from disbursing the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- payable to the debtor and for a direction to deposit the said amount into the Court. It is also not in dispute that the initial order of attachment made in the above said I.A.No.32 of 2000 was subsequently made absolute.

6. Originally, it is found that the garnishees had been set ex parte in I.A.No.32 of 2000 and the application to set aside the same was also not entertained and as against which, C.R.P.No.809 of 2006 had been preferred and pursuant to the order in the above said civil revision petition, it is found that finally, I.A.No.32 of 2000 had been disposed of by the Trial Court and the Trial Court had dismissed the said application on the above said two grounds adverted supra. Challenging the same, the respondents 1 to 3/creditors preferred C.M.A.No.18 of 2007 and the Appellate Court had set aside the order of the Trial Court passed in I.A.No.32 of 2000 and thereby entertained the application filed in I.A.No.32 of 2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner/garnishee has preferred the present civil revision petition.

7. As adverted above, on two grounds, the Trial Court had dismissed the application in I.A.No.32 of 2000. As seen from the records, it is noted that the debtor has been described as G. Sivashanmuganathan, Chairman, Green Lands, in both proceedings. Therefore, as rightly putforth by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/creditors, it is noted that the above mentioned proceedings had been initiated against the said Sivashanmuganathan, in his capacity as the Chairman of Green Lands and in such view of the matter, the findings of the Trial Court that the fourth respondent/debtor is not one and the same in the above said proceedings and hence the respondents 1 to 3/creditors are not entitled to proceed as against the properties of the Green Lands in the hands of the garnishees are unacceptable. As rightly determined by the Appellate Court, the proceedings having been initiated against Sivashanmuganathan, Chairman, Green Lands, in his capacity as Chairman, it is found that the Appellate Court has rightly held that both the proceedings h