JUDGMENT

Sir Knox and Piggott, JJ. - The appeal before us is on the face of it an appeal against the order of the District Judge, dated the 7th of February, 1911. The order in question is an order refusing to revoke an order passed by him on the 3rd of December, 1910, which order was for the winding up of a company known as Shri Baldeo Mills Company, Limited, Hathras. A preliminary objection is taken by the Official Liquidator to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that the appeal is time-barred. The objection sets out two grounds on which the plea of limitation is pressed. The first is that the order winding up the company was passed on the 3rd of December, 1910, and has become final. Section 169 of the Indian Companies Act, while allowing appeals from any order or decision in the matter of winding up of a company, provides further that no appeal will be heard unless notice of the same is given within three weeks after the order complained of has been made in the manner in which notices of appeal are ordinarily given under the CPC unless such time is extended by the court of appeal. Secondly, even if the appeal be taken to be against the order, dated the 7th of February, 1911, it is still out of time. The memorandum of appeal was presented within three weeks from the 7th of February, 1911, but notice was not given until long after three weeks had passed. In our opinion the preliminary objection is a good one and prevails. We were referred to several cases by the learned advocate for the appellants, namely, Ramanappa v. The Official Liquidator Bellary Brucepetta Stock and Loan Transacting Company, Limited (1898) I.L.R., 22 Mad., 291, Lakshminarasayya Setti Vs. Venkanna Setti and Others, (1902) ILR (Mad) 576 R. Wall and Another Vs. J.E. Howard and Others, (1896) ILR (All) 215 In Re: the matter of the Sarawak and Hindustan Banking and Trading Company, Limited and Lallah Baroomul, (1879) ILR (Cal) 704 We have considered all these cases, and in our opinion the position taken up in all these cases are against the appellants. The appeal is beyond time and is dismissed with costs. Separate sets of costs will be allowed in case of the Official Liquidator, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and respondent No. 33.