( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by some of the opposite parties against whom an order was made by the learned Company Judge under Section 153 CO (8), Companies Act (VII of 1913 ). A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the applicant respondent 1 that no appeal lies.

( 2 ) WE have confined the arguments only to the preliminary objection and, it is, therefore, not necessary to go into the facts in any detail. Rani Revati Devi filed an application in this Court under Section 153 (C), Companies Act in the matter of the Vishnu Pracap Sugar Works Limited, khadda, District Deoria. She claimed that the company was a private Ltd. Co. with a capital of rs. 8,50,000/-, divided in 1,700 fully paid up shares of Rs. 500/- each, and most of the shares of the company were held by members of the Fadrauna Rai family. She alleged that she was a share-holder and managing director of the company and that opposite parties 2 to 4 supported by opposite parties 6 1o 8, and committed various acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and mismanagement and had so conducted the affairs of the company as to promote their personal ends at the cost of the company and its other shareholders. It was further alleged that the opposite parties mentioned above having the majority of votes are in a position to oppress the minority. She claimed that the circumstances set out by her in the petition are such as would justify the winding up of the company under the just and equitable Clause (vi) of Section 162 companies Act but, instead of asking for that relief, she wanted that the Court should pass orders for the regulation of the conduct of the companys affairs in future and pass such other and further orders detailed In the petition as may be necessary for the proper running of the company in the interest of all concerned.

( 3 ) IN the same petition a prayer was made for an interim order under Section 153 (C) (8) which was as follows: "that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition the applicant or some other fit and proper person be appointed as receiver to take charge of the properties, assets, books of account, papers and vouchers of the company, with power to carry on the business of the company and with all other powers under Order 40, Rule l, Civil P. C. " the petition was supported by a long affidavit and, on notice being issued to the opposite parties, they appeared and filed objections to which the petitioner filed replies.

( 4 ) BEFORE, however, the application under Section 153 (C) could be finally heard and disposed of, a prayer was made that, pending the decision, interim relief may be granted and a receiver be appointed so that the petitioners interest may not further suffer. On 1g-1-1953, the case was put up before the learned Company Judge in order to decide whether the interim relief sought in the petition should be granted. Due to, however, some defect in the affidavits the matter was postponed to 18th February for the consideration of the question whether an Interim relief by appointment of a receiver should or should not be granted. Arguments were addressed on the point and the learned Judge on 2-4-1953, passed an order appointing a receiver to take over charge of the companys affairs. It is against that order dated 2-4-1953, that this appeal has been filed.

( 5 ) IN answer to the preliminary objection, Mr Jagdish Swarup has relied on Section 202, companies Act, on the provisions of Order 43, E. 1, Civil P. C. and Clause 10 of our Letters patent read with els. 7 and 13 U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948.

( 6 ) AS regards Section 202, Companies Act, it provides for appeals from orders made or given, in the matter of the winding up of a company by the Court, Section 202 is as follows: "appeals from orders re-hearings of, and appeals from, any order or decision made or given in the matter of the winding up of a company by the Court may be had in the same manner and subject to the same conditions in and subj