Judgment : Feeling aggrieved by Order, dated 20-12-2007, in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in OP.No.7 of 2005, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, who is a mortgagee, secured a decree for recovery of certain amounts from respondent No.2 in OS.No.7 of 2005. In order to execute the said decree, the petitioner filed EP.No.14 of 2007. While the said EP was pending, respondent No.2 instituted insolvency proceedings, under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short 'the Act') in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, which was registered as IP.No.5 of 2002. The Court below, by its Order, which is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition, closed the EP on the ground that the Insolvency Petition filed by respondent No.2 is pending and that the petitioner shall appear before the Court, in which the Insolvency Petition is pending, and make his claim before the Official Receiver. While so holding, the lower Court has raised the attachment. At the hearing, Mr.V.V.Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel, representing Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower Court has committed a serious error of jurisdiction in raising the attachment and closing the EP. He placed reliance on the provisions of Section 28 (6) of the Act to bring home his submission that, being secured creditor, the petitioner is entitled to execute the decree obtained by him without reference to the insolvency proceedings. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Kadimsetti Somaraju vs. Chekker Lakshmi Satyanarayana ( 1998 (1) ALT 740 ), Vasavi and Company vs. Nampally Padma ( 1999 (2) ALT 305 ) and Kolla Subbaiah vs. Nerella Chandrasekhara Rao ( 1999 (2) ALT 305 ). At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent No.2-judgment debtor. Section 28 of the Act deals with the effect of an order of adjudication. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent No.2-judgment debtor. Section 28 of the Act deals with the effect of an order of adjudication. This provision adumbrates that, on the making of an order of adjudication, the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Court or in a Receiver, and shall become divisible among the creditors, and thereafter, except as provided by the Act, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable under this Act shall during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings shall have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of the debt or commence any suit or other legal proceedings, except with the leave of the Court and on such terms as the Court may impose. Sub-Section 6 of Section 28, however, carved out an exception in respect to the right of the secured creditor to realize or otherwise deal with security in the same manner as he would have been entitled to realize or deal with it if Section 28 has not been enacted. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a secured creditor being a mortgagee. A perusal of decree, dated 16-03-2007, shows that the same is in the nature of a mortgage decree. Therefore, the petitioner falls within the exception carved out to Section 28 of the Act. This Court, in the judgments referred to above, has held in no uncertain terms that a secured creditor is entitled to recover the money payable under a decree notwithstanding pendency of insolvency petition under the Act. The Court below has, therefore, committed serious jurisdictional error in raising the attachment and closing the EP. In the premises as above, Order, dated 20-12-2007, in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in OP.No.7 of 2005, on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur, is set aside. Consequently, E.P.No.14 of 2007 stands restored to file. The lower Court is directed to proceed with the EP regardless of the pendency or outcome of the Insolvency Petition filed by respondent No.2. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. As a sequel, CMP.No.564 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous.