KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THESE are two appeals, the first by the Hyderabad Co-operative Commercial Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as "h. C. C. C. Ltd.) through the Director of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and the second by the State of Andhra pradesh, represented by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Supplies Department, against the same order D/-11-7-1967 of the second Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in E. A. 5/62 in E. P. No. 95/59 in O. S. No. 2 of 1959 o his file.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 10 in these appeals are the same, respondent 1 being Syed Mohiuddin Khadri, the decree-holder in the above suit, who having dies is now represented by his legal representatives, respondents 2 to 10. Respondent 11 in C. M. A. No. 374/67 is the H. C. C. C. Ltd. represented by the Director of Civil Supplies, who, as stated above, is the appellant in C. M. A. No. 210 of 1967. Later applications were filed to add the Liquidator, H. C. C. C. Ltd. which is now under liquidation as a respondent in the two appeals and the said applications have been ordered.

( 3 ) THE order under appeal is passed in execution proceedings in O. S. No. 2 of 1959, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Though the decree was passed on 2-4-1959, the execution proceedings have been going on ever since and have come up to the High Court on several occasion. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by both the sides in these appeals, it is necessary to set out in detail the various events that have culminated in the passing of the impugned order.

( 4 ) A company called "the Hyderabad Commercial Corporation Ltd. " was registered under the Hyderabad Companies Act 4 of 1340 F. on the 23rd Forward, 1352 Fasli. Sometime later on 12th Rajabul Murajab, 1365 Fijri by a Firman of H. E. H. the Nizam it was converted into hyderabad Co-operative Commercial Corporation Ltd. The bye-laws of the Society were duly registered. The H. C. C. C. Ltd. was carrying on its business according to bye-laws. On 26/02/1952, Notifications Nos. 18 to 20 were published in the Gazette. Under Notification No. 18, the godowns of the H. C. C. C. Ltd. were requisitioned in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Requisition of Immovable Property (Continuance of Temporary Powers) Regulation, 1357f. and the Managing Director was ordered to hand over the possession thereof to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies on 1-3-1952. By Notification No. 19, certain articles belonging to H. C. C. C. Ltd. , were requisitioned and the Managing Director was directed to hand over the same to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies on 1-3-1952. By Notification No. 20, the whole of the stock of the food supplies referred to therein held by the Corporation was ordered to be sold and delivered possession of to the officers authorised in this behalf at the prices entered in the books of the H. C. C. C. Ltd. The legal effect of these notification is one of the questions that arises in these appeals. The respondent contends that the entire assets and liabilities of the H. C. C. C. Ltd. , were taken over by the Government, with the result that the government became the representative-in-interest of the Corporation. On the other hand, it is contended by the Government that the notifications have only the effect of transferring the godown stocks, etc. , but do not have the effect of the government becoming entitled to all the assets and being subject to all the liabilities of the Corporation. At this stage however, it is sufficient to note that the entire management became vested in the Department of Civil Supplies and the Director of Civil Supplies began to represent the company in all its affairs.

( 5 ) DISPUTES seem to have arisen between Syed Mohiuddin Khadri, since deceased (though deceased he is described as the first respondent) and the H. C. C. C. Ltd. in respect of a contract entered into between them. The dispute was referred to arbitration and ultimately tow arbit