1. The only question in this appeal is whether a sum of Rs. 233-13 was, within the meaning of Section 34 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 'realized in the course of the execution' of a decree before the date of the order of adjudication. The Court below has held that it was realized after the order of adjudication and must, therefore, be distributed between the creditors and should not be paid over to the appellant in execution of whose decree the money was realized. The insolvent is a Government servent, named Grant, and the sum in question represents half his pay for the month of July 1911. Grant was at the time in Naini Tal and drew his pay from the Treasury there. An order attaching half his pay had been issued in the usual way and had been passed on to the Treasury Officer at Naini Tal. The order of adjudication was passed on the 21st of August 1911. Grant drew half of his pay before that date, but the other half did not reach the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad where the decree was being executed, till the 28th of August 1911. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that as soon as Grant presented his pay bill at the Treasury in Naini Tal and received half of it, the other half, less a deduction on account of income-tax, must have been entered in the Treasury cash book as a sura to be seat to the Court of the Subordinate Judge in the case of Debi Prasad v. Grant and it is contended that the date on which that entry was made is the date of realization within the meaning of Section 34 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. I am, unable to accept this argument, The Treasury Officer at Naini Tal is not an officer of the Civil Court. He was the person whose duty it was to remit the money to the Civil Court and it seems to me that the money was not realized within the meaning of Section 34 until it reached the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The appellant has relied on the case of Sorabji Edulji Warden v. Govind Ramji 16 B. 91. But that decision has no bearing upon the present case. In that case, the money was paid into the hands of the Sheriff and the Court held that that amounted to realization; The Sheriff was the person to whom the warrant of attachment had been addressed. In my opinion, the decision of the Court below is perfectly correct. I dismiss this appeal with costs.