ORDER Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A. Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 (sic. 2) and also the learned Advocate General, on Court notice. 2. The petitioner, who is an unsuccessful claim petitioner, files this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the orders rejecting an application filed by him purporting to be under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC setting up a claim, as per the orders in E.A.No.224 of 2001 in E.P.No.86 of 1999 in O.S.No.873 of 1998 dated 23-4-2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent No.1 herein is a decree-holder, who filed the present execution petition on 31-3-1999 in pursuance of a decree obtained in a suit seeking for specific performance of the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the respondent No.2 herein, in respect of suit schedule property consisting of a house situated at Rethi Bowli, Hyderabad. The respondent No.2, who is the judgment debtor, had filed an insolvency petition in I.P.No.44 of 1998, inter alia, on the allegation that there exists a liability for a sum of Rs.99 lakhs payable to 75 creditors, which include the respondent No.1/Decree Holder and Charminar Co-operative Bank, as one amongst them. However, the said I.P. was dismissed. During the pendency of the said I.P., a receiver was appointed. However, now the claim of the petitioner in the application filed in the Court below is that having regard to the said proceedings, the property cannot be proceeded against for any such transfer in pursuance of such decree. On contest, the Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the I.P., is no more pending and therefore, the question of entertaining any claim of the petitioner or any objection as such, is unsustainable. Hence, this revision. 4. On contest, the Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the I.P., is no more pending and therefore, the question of entertaining any claim of the petitioner or any objection as such, is unsustainable. Hence, this revision. 4. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that having regard to the insolvency proceedings which have been initiated, where an official receiver was appointed, the said proceedings must have its own logical end and mere dismissal of the insolvency petition, would not itself undo the steps which have to be taken even by the Official Receiver and apart from the fact that any such transfer in favour of one of the creditors by an insolvent is fraudulent and would affect the claims of other creditors. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner in the claim is perfectly justified and there should not have been any such execution of the decree. 5. These submissions sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondent that there is absolutely no justifiable claim on behalf of the petitioner, much less an objection, hence sought for dismissal of the revision. 6. Having heard the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material, it is seen that the main objection on behalf of the petitioner, who is a third party, as a claim petitioner is in regard to insolvency proceedings, which have been initiated by respondent No.2 and therefore, the execution should not have been proceeded with without proper interdiction of insolvency proceedings. However, as pointed out in the Court below and during the course of arguments, since the I. P., was dismissed and therefore, it was held that no such objection is sustainable. It was pointed out that though a receiver was appointed in the said insolvency proceedings, it was treated as if the receiver no longer continues in view of the dismissal of the I.P., and in fact, no further steps are being taken up by said receiver. 7. Interestingly, during the course of the arguments, it has been pointed out that in this particular district unit, no official receiver has been appointed as contemplated under the Provincial Insolvency Act and therefore, it is only the individual Receivers are being appointed in each of the case separately and there are many complaints arising from every angle in regard to the administration of the properties. It was also pointed out that there is no proper check or any inspection from any quarter in regard to all such Receivers and accounts are not being verified regularly and there are many lapses from all sides. Therefore, this Court as per the orders dated 5-9-2006 called for report from the Court below as to the exact stage and the steps taken in the said insolvency proceedings. Thereupon, the Court below has sent a report dated 19-9-2006 to the effect that the said I.P. No.44 of 1998 was filed on 15-7 -1998 by the respondent No.2 herein to declare him as insolvent and to discharge liabilities from various creditors. The I. P., was dismissed for default on 3-11-2000. During the pendency of the I.P., I.A.No.93 of 1998 was filed for appointment of the receiver to take possession of the B Schedule property, i.e., all that house situated at Rethi Bowli, Hyderabad. As per the report of the Official Receiver, the possession of the property was taken vide memo dated 3-7-2000. An I.A.No.61 of 2003 was filed to set aside the dismissal order dated 3-11-2000 and the same was dismissed for default for non-payment of process and for non-representation. Thus, it clearly shows that though receiver took over the property in the year 2000, no reference is made to any further action on the part of the receiver all along. According to the petitioner the suit property is worth more than Rs.50 lakhs, whereas the consideration in the suit agreement is only Rs.2.50 lakhs. 8. From this report, it is evident that no doubt, the main I.P .was dismissed and nothing is pending. However, the fact remains that there was appointment of an Official Receiver, as stated above, and the very same suit schedule property was taken possession by the Official Receiver, as evident from the aforesaid memo it is the very same property in respect of which now the present execution has been laid by the respondent No.1-decree holder, who had obtained the decree for specific performance, where the petitioner has come out with the aforesaid objections. 9. Subsequently, having taken note of the peculiar appalling situation arising, a notice was given to the learned Advocate General for assisting the Court in regard to the appointment of Official Receivers in this unit and other units in the State. 9. Subsequently, having taken note of the peculiar appalling situation arising, a notice was given to the learned Advocate General for assisting the Court in regard to the appointment of Official Receivers in this unit and other units in the State. Thereupon, the learned Advocate General, on appearance, submitted that in this particular unit there is no regular Official Receiver appointed by the State and there are also several other districts where no such appointments have been made. It has been pointed out that the regular Official Receivers, who were appointed by the State exist only in the districts of Srikakulam, Vishakapatnam, East Godavari, West Dodavari, Krishna, Guntur, Prakasham and Nellore. However, there is no such appointment in the districts of Vizianagaram, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, Warangal, Khammam, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Adilabad, Mahboobnagar, Medak and Nalgonda. The learned Advocate General is not able to show any particular reason either factually or legally as to why no such appointments are being made in these latter districts. 10. On enquiry by this Court, the registry of this Court stated that the pendency of the insolvency petitions in each of the units is as follows: Sl. No. Name of the District Pendency as on 30-6-2006 1. Adilabad 45 2. Anantapur 263 3. Chittoor 458 4. Kadapa 285 5. East Godavari 615 6. Guntur 669 7. City Small Causes Courts, Hydrabad 101 8. Krimnagar 161 9. Khammam 133 10. Krishna 787 11. Kurnool 291 12. Mahabubnagar 38 13. Medak 33 14. Nalgonda 88 15. Nellore 336 16. Nizamabad 47 17. Prakasham 475 18. Rangareddy 90 19 Srikakulam 41 20. Visakhapatnam 145 21. Vizianagaram 63 22. Warangal 63 23. West Godavari 886 And even, the value of the properties involved in all these cases are quite substantial as evident from below: Sl.No. Name of the Total Number Number of Value of the District of Insolvency Receivers property Petitions Appointed Involved in Pending in the cases the cases in Rs. 1. Adilabad 44 Nil 2,74,48,637/- 2. Karimnagar 163 6 4,93,94,013/- 3. Khammam 123 26 14,86,82,137/- 4. Mahbubnagar 38 2 3,17,94,110/- 5. Medak 30 1 3,49,91,800/- 6. Nalgonda 84 41 2,94,07,489/- 7. Rangareddy 95 Nil 21,27,77,751/- 8. Warangal 57 12 10,87,77,284/- 9. City small Causes 108 4 37,04,40,001/- Court, Hyderabad 11. 1. Adilabad 44 Nil 2,74,48,637/- 2. Karimnagar 163 6 4,93,94,013/- 3. Khammam 123 26 14,86,82,137/- 4. Mahbubnagar 38 2 3,17,94,110/- 5. Medak 30 1 3,49,91,800/- 6. Nalgonda 84 41 2,94,07,489/- 7. Rangareddy 95 Nil 21,27,77,751/- 8. Warangal 57 12 10,87,77,284/- 9. City small Causes 108 4 37,04,40,001/- Court, Hyderabad 11. From the above, it is quite evident that almost in every district, noticeable number of insolvency proceedings are pending involving substantial properties of considerable value and yet, it is only in few districts, such regular appointment of Official Receiver is made by the State, whereas in other units, there is no such appointments. 12. Under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, in respect of the proceedings arising thereunder at the instance of either creditor or debtor in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Courts of Senior Civil Judges and the Courts of Junior Civil Judges are conferred with the jurisdiction to decide all questions whether of title of the property or of any nature whatsoever whether involving matters of law or fact ultimately leading to the distribution of property. However, there is no uniform pattern in the administration of insolvency jurisdiction on the equal plane and equal manner amongst the Courts and the Units within the State. 13. Apart from the specific provision for appointment of interim receiver by insolvency Courts, under Section 56 of the said Act, there is a specific provision to appoint a receiver for the property of the insolvent at the time of order of adjudication and thereupon such property shall vest in such receiver. Similarly under Section 57 of the said Act, the Government is conferred with ample power to appoint official receivers within such local limits as it may be described and he shall be the receiver and the interim receiver for the purpose of every order appointing a receiver or an interim receiver unless otherwise directs. 14. The powers and duties of the receiver are also amply defined under Sections 58 and 59 of the said Act, which are very germane and confer heavier responsibility in the administration of property and its distribution. 15. 14. The powers and duties of the receiver are also amply defined under Sections 58 and 59 of the said Act, which are very germane and confer heavier responsibility in the administration of property and its distribution. 15. In the aforesaid districts, where no such regular official receiver exists or appointed, it has been pointed out that individually separate Receivers were appointed in every case and there is no regular and proper check or inspection of the Court with every such receiver in regard to their functioning and accounts. 16. A careful reading of the provisions shows that the Court which has jurisdiction generally exercises all the powers, but when an official receiver is appointed, the same powers are conferred on the official receiver. The appointment of the official receiver saves the valuable time of the presiding officer of the Court and avoids any probable inconvenience, as some of the duties, which an official receiver discharges are onerous, time consuming and require interactions with large sections of public. An official receiver, as an interim receiver or a receiver, has to deal with the properties both movable and immovable and has to administer the estate. This requires constant visits to the places where the properties are located and constant monitoring of the properties which includes transactions like leases and mortgages etcetera. The 3 receiver has also to do functions like collection of rents, distribution of dividends, distribution of properties etcetera. In the absence of the appointment of an official receiver, the Court shall exercise all the powers conferred on a receiver under this Act. This situation results in loss of valuable time on administrative and trivial matters, which time can otherwise be utilized for dispensation of justice in more important matters. Therefore, in places where an official receiver duly appointed is available, the said course is thus helping the Court in saving its valuable time and incidentally contributes to efficacious administration of the estate. 17. In almost all the coastal districts in the State like Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari and some other districts like Krishna, Guntur and other districts duly appointed official Receivers are functioning. But such officers are not appointed in other districts, including at Hyderabad. 18. 17. In almost all the coastal districts in the State like Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari and some other districts like Krishna, Guntur and other districts duly appointed official Receivers are functioning. But such officers are not appointed in other districts, including at Hyderabad. 18. Now, in places where the official Receivers are not appointed, the Courts have no other option but to appoint advocate Receivers and over such Receivers, the Courts may not be able to supervise as the Courts have over the official Receivers appointed under the Act. In some places even the ordinary Receivers duly empanelled are not available. In general, the complaints against all such individual Receivers are writ large. Under Chapter XVII of the Civil Rules of Practice the presiding officer of each Court shall maintain a panel of legal practitioners and other persons with suitable qualifications from among whom Receivers shall ordinarily be appointed. Even where such Receivers are available, their appointment on the panel will be only on furnishing of a security in a small sum of Rs.2,000/- only, though the subject matter involved runs into worth of lakhs. In cases of mismanagement and loss caused to the estate due to wilful acts or gross negligence of the advocate receiver there cannot be any efficacious remedy as is available in the case of the official Receivers appointed under the Act. Therefore, considering the exigencies the load of work of the trial Courts and keeping in view the efficacious provisions in the Act as regards the appointment of the official Receivers, their functions, supervision of the Court over such official Receivers and for other reasons it is expedient to direct the government to appoint official Receivers under this Act for all places covering the local limits of all the districts. 19. It is noticed during the inspections made by this Court that there is no proper inspection done in respect of the official Receivers wherever such officers are existing and even an attempt made to look into its affair. It was found that there are many lapses going unnoticed. Secondly, in the units where there is no such official receiver exists, insolvency Courts are appointing individual Receivers separately in each case and even in respect of such Receivers also there is no proper inspection or accounts are gone into. It was found that there are many lapses going unnoticed. Secondly, in the units where there is no such official receiver exists, insolvency Courts are appointing individual Receivers separately in each case and even in respect of such Receivers also there is no proper inspection or accounts are gone into. Even the unit heads are also not posted with the day to day developments in all such matters and no proper steps are being taken as and when it is due and necessary. 20. In view of the aforesaid reasons, there is dire need for appointment of official Receivers in all the aforesaid units as mentioned above. Wherever no such appointment has been made, since insolvency proceedings involve substantial property and the same is, going astray due to absence of such official receiver. Therefore, on par with other districts where such Receivers are existing, it would be more apt to seek for such appointment so that the subject matters involved in every insolvency proceeding is properly managed and taken care of and the rights of the parties are amply safeguarded. 21.ln view of the aforesaid reasons, State shall ensure that regular Officer Receivers are appointed in each of the units with all its paraphernalia so as to discharge the functions and duties as contemplated under the statute. The learned Advocate General fairly submits that appropriate steps would be taken accordingly, in earnest for appointing the official Receivers in each unit separately as expeditiously as possible, but not later than within a period of six months from to-day. 22. It does not require any reiteration that once a receiver is appointed, he continues till he is duly discharged by the Court and till then the properties taken over by the receiver will be under custodia legis. Therefore, mere dismissal of insolvency petition is of no consequence. Otherwise, it will lead to situation where parties collusively get the said petition dismissed and play fraud on the body of creditors. 23. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the approach of the Court below that since no insolvency petition, is pending the claim petition itself could not possibly be gone into or entertained, is wholly unsustainable. Unusually, even though the application is one under Rule 48 (sic. 23. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the approach of the Court below that since no insolvency petition, is pending the claim petition itself could not possibly be gone into or entertained, is wholly unsustainable. Unusually, even though the application is one under Rule 48 (sic. 58) of Order XXI of CPC where an enquiry is a sine qua non before making any attempt to go into the merits and give a finding, whereas in this case no such enquiry has been conducted and no explanation is forthcoming from either side. Therefore, order under challenge is liable to be set aside. 24. Since the matter has to be re-considered from the proper perspective, especially in view of the reasons above mentioned, the revision is accordingly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh disposal, on merits in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both sides and including to the official receiver, who has been appointed in the said I.P.