P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against an order made in E. P. No. 91 of 1996 in O. S. No. 58 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the revision petitioner is the judgment debtor. The respondent in the revision petition is a decree holder. He filed E. P. No. 91 of 1996 in O. S. No. 58 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala for bringing the properties of the judgment debtor to sale for realisation of the decree amount. ( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as decree holder and judgment debtor. The Decree holder obtained a money decree in o. S. No. 58 of 1994 against the judgment debtor on the strength of a registered mortgage deed and obtained final decree on 1. 11. 1996 for bringing the mortgaged properties to sale for realization of E. P. amount. The judgment debtor raised an objection stating that he had been adjudged as insolvent on 31. 10. 1997 in E. P. No. 3 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, bapatla and hence the decree holder is not entitled to bring the mortgaged property to sale for the purpose of realization of the e. P. amount, since the property was already vested with the Official Receiver, Guntur. It was further stated that the suit had been filed for partition and the same is pending. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the decree holder, none had been examined and on behalf of the judgment debtor, Ex. B1 alone was marked. ( 5 ) THE Court below after considering the objections held that the decree holder is entitled to bring the E. P. schedule properties i. e. , mortgaged properties to sale to realise the E. P. amount. ( 6 ) HEARD both the learned Counsel at length. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the judgment debtor contended that in view of the filing of the insolvency petition and the order of adjudication made by the insolvency court, the decree holder cannot bring the property to sale. ( 8 ) SRI Peddababu, learned Counsel appointed as amicus curlae in this matter had drawn my attention to the relevant provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. ( 8 ) SRI Peddababu, learned Counsel appointed as amicus curlae in this matter had drawn my attention to the relevant provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Section 28 (6) and also Section 47 of the Act and had contended that the ordinary rule or principle cannot be applied in the case of secured creditors. ( 9 ) IN Padmaavathamma v. Battepati parthasarathi, 1996 (4) ALT 272 , while dealing with Section 28 (6) of the Provincial insolvency Act, 1920, it was held that the secured creditor can realize his mortgage debt by filing a suit without obtaining leave of the insolvency Court. The same view was expressed in kadimsetti Somaraju v. Chekker Lakshmi satyanarayana, 1998 (1) ALT 740 . In baburama Chaugule v. The Goodwill bank Limited, Miraj, AIR 1973 Bom. 342 , it was observed by the Bombay High Court as follows: "what is saved by sub-section (6) of section 28 is the power to enforce security and the manner in which it could be done. The power and the manner are not to be contused with the adequate representation of the estate through proper parties, on record. " ( 10 ) IN Chemkuri Venkateswarlu v. The official Receiver, Guntur, 1971 (2) APLJ 123, it was observed as follows: "though the property has been sold in pursuance of a wrong order in contravention of preemptory terms of Section 52, the question regarding validity had to be decided with reference to Section 51 of the Act. In view of Section 51 (3) of the Act it was held that though the decree holder gets no right to the proceeds, the purchaser in good faith nevertheless acquires a good title to the property. " It was further held that "a purchaser in good faith acquires title even as against the Receiver. " ( 11 ) IN Parachuri Madhavacharyulu v. Manam Venkata Rao, 1984 (1) ALT 27 , it was held as follows: "the jurisdiction and power of interference of the High Court in a proceeding under section 115 of the CPC is highly restricted and more so, after the Amending Act, 1976". ( 12 ) EVEN otherwise, after going through the impugned order, I am satisfied that if the order if allowed to stand, it will not occasion in any failure of justice and hence I am not inclined to interfere with the well considered order of the Court below. ( 12 ) EVEN otherwise, after going through the impugned order, I am satisfied that if the order if allowed to stand, it will not occasion in any failure of justice and hence I am not inclined to interfere with the well considered order of the Court below. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the CRP fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ( 14 ) THIS Court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the amicus curias Sri Peddababu, learned Counsel in this regard.