Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A. No. 93 of 2000 in I.P. No.1 of 2000 of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. Petitioner is the 93rd respondent in I.P. No.1 of 2000 filed by the respondents herein on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The respondents in the Civil Revision Petition filed the above petition for adjudging as insolvents under the provisions of the Kerala Insolvency Act on the ground that huge debts were incurred in money lending business by the first respondent herein under the name and style "National Union Trust" at Kothamangalam. 2. The petitioner herein is a Banking Society incorporated as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and Rules framed thereunder and having branches among other places at Kothamangalam in Ernakulam District. The respondents had availed two loans of Rs. 9 lakhs from the petitioner - Bank on 17.11.1995, on the security of the immovable properties belonging to the respondents by creation of an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the same to the petitioner - Bank. Since the amount was not paid, the petitioner initiated recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount and obtained separate awards in Arbitration Cases, A.R.C. Nos. 84/97,85/97, and 86/97, against the respondents and another. The Bank has to realise in all Rs. 60 lakhs under the above awards. Execution Petitions, E.P. Nos. 174 and 173 of 1998 were filed against the respondents on 9.9.1998. The properties belonging to the respondents herein were attached by the Sales Officer of the petitioner on 22.7.1999 and put up for public auction on 20.1.2000 after issuing sufficient notice of the auction sale. It is at this stage that the respondents filed Insolvency Petition No.1 of 2000. They also filed I.A. No. 93 of 2000 for staying all proceedings of the auction sale of the mortgaged properties belonging to the respondent, which was fixed on 20.1.2000 by the Sales Officer. I.A. No. 93 of 2000 was filed only for the purpose of stalling the sale of the mortgaged properties. The petitioner in spite of being a secured creditor having first charge over properties belonging to the respondents is now prevented from recovering the loan amount from the respondents in view of the impugned order of stay by the Court below. I.A. No. 93 of 2000 was filed only for the purpose of stalling the sale of the mortgaged properties. The petitioner in spite of being a secured creditor having first charge over properties belonging to the respondents is now prevented from recovering the loan amount from the respondents in view of the impugned order of stay by the Court below. The Court below has stayed the sale of the property till the disposal of the Insolvency Petition. It is against that this revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that under S.28 of the Kerala Insolvency Act, 1956 the petitioner being a secured creditor was specifically excluded from the insolvency proceedings. The main contention of the petitioner is that under S.28(6) of the Kerala Insolvency Act, the petitioner is entitled to protection and priority of the claims due to a secured creditor of a debtor either before or after adjudication as an insolvent by the Insolvency Court and hence, it was wrong to stay the proceedings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the Insolvency Act, the Insolvency Court had got jurisdiction to stay the proceedings when it finds just and equitable. 4. Similar question came before the Madras High Court in Ramnad District Central Co-operative Bank v. Official Receiver of Ramnad Dt. Ramnad at Madura, AIR 1954 Madras 12. There the Madras High Court was considering the provision in the Insolvency Act and held as follows: "Though an Insolvency Court will not restrain a mortgage or other secured creditor in the exercise of his legal remedies under S.28 of the Act it has jurisdiction in proper cases to restrain him under 0.39, R.1, Civil P.C., if there are substantial grounds for impeaching his title, with a view to safeguard the interests of the general body of creditors the Insolvency Court was justified in issuing an injunction restraining a Co-operative Bank from proceeding with the sale of insolvent's immovable properties in a proceeding under S.57A, Madras Co-operative Societies Act, pending an application by the official receiver under S.53, Provincial Insolvency Act, challenging the security bond in favour of the Bank which covered all the immovable properties of the insolvent". The Court relied on certain observations in the judgment of Cotton L.J. at page 227, which state as follows: "Under such circumstances if the Court saw that there was a reasonable case to be tried at the hearing, it would interfere and keep the property 'in medio' until at the hearing the rights of the parties could be decided". So far as the present case is concerned, reasons are given that the State has got first charge of the property and also the fact that there are large number of creditors and the petitioner was only one among them. 5. I am of the view that on the basis of the above facts, the court below was justified in granting injunction. I direct the Court below to expedite the proceedings. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.