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 wi