(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not think that there is any justifiable reason for interference with the order of the High court of orissa. The appellant filed OJC No. 5392 of 1994 in the High court seeking an order to recall the judgment rendered by the High court in OJC No. 4047 of 1989 dated 16/9/1991 and also to direct impleading of the appellant as a party to the aforesaid writ petitIOn and to hear it afresh in accordance with law. That writ petitIOn was dismissed under the impugned order dated 16/8/1994 holding that the appellant is not a necessary party to the writ petitIOn and the contesting respondent Ashoka Industries Ltd. has a statutory right of redemptIOn under SectIOn 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and that, therefore, the appellant cannot be heard to contend that Ashoka Industries Ltd. have no right of redemptIOn under SectIOn 60 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3) SHRI P. Chidambaram, learned SenIOr Counsel for the appellant contended that under SectIOn 29 of the State Financial CorporatIOn Act, for short the Act, while taking over the property, the CorporatIOn shall act in derogatIOn of the