Judgment :- Since identical orders have been passed by the Court below, the above revisions are being disposed of by the following common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent. 3. The petitioner herein / decree holder filed an execution petition before the Court below. In the said proceedings, the respondent herein / Judgment Debtor filed a memo stating that he has filed an Insolvency Petition before the same Court against the petitioner, i.e., I.P.No.1 of 2002; accordingly, the execution petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the same. By the orders which are under challenge, the learned Subordinate Judge, based on the information furnished in the memo, after recording the same, closed the execution petitions, hence the present revisions at the instance of the decree holder. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing my attention to Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 would contend that in the absence of any order staying the proceedings, the Executing Court is not competent Court to close the execution petition merely on the basis of a memo filed by the judgment debtor. Admittedly, though the respondent - judgment debtor has filed an insolvency petition, no order staying any of the proceeding has been secured / obtained. In such a circumstance, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the Court below is not justified in closing the execution petitions. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.09.2002 made in REP.Nos. 123, 124 and 128 of 1999 in O.S.Nos.136 of 1986, 77 of 1989 and 440 of 1989 respectively are set aside; the said REPs., are kept pending. It is made clear that the respondent herein / Judgment Debtor is free to secure appropriate order in the insolvency proceedings said to have been filed and pending before the same Court. With the above observation, all the civil revision petitions are allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs.