JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri M.P.Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of respondents 3, 4 and 5 though the case has been called in revise and names of several counsels have been shown in the cause list as counsel for respondents.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India whereby petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 30.09.1995 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Appeal No.116 of 1985 arising from judgment and decree dated 27.4.1985 of Munsif, Kanpur Nagar on an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C.").

3. The facts in brief giving rise to present dispute are that M/s Neelkanth Lalta Prasad (hereinafter referred to as "respondent 4") instituted Original Suit No.76 of 1963 in the Court of Munsif Lakhimpur for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,500/- from M/s Cawnpore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "respondent 5"). The suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.1963. For execution of decree, respondent 4 got it transferred to Munsif (City), Kanpur and commenced Execution Case No.55 of 1968 against respondent 5.

4. Respondent 5 is a Company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1913") and had its registered office at 74/4, Amgerest Street, Calcutta. Even before filing of suit, winding up petition under Sections 186, 397 and 398 of of Act, 1913 was filed in Calcutta High Court in 1962, which was registered as Company Petition Suit No.110 of 1962. Vide order dated 20.12.1963, Calcutta High Court appointed one Bhagwan Das Jaiswal as Administrator of respondent 5-Company for a period of five years and laid down certain terms and conditions regulating powers and duties of Administrator. One of such power included power to sell property of Company to liquidate debts of creditors. The said Administrator, Sri Bhagwan Das Jaiswal, executed sale deed dated 10.9.1969 of plot no.61, forming part of premises no.83/258, situated in Mohalla Juhi Khurd, Kanpur City, transferring 355.56 square yards, for a consideration of Rs.19555=80, to petitioner. Possession was also given to her. Petitioner constructed a boundary wall and fixed an iron gate showing her actual and symbolic possession over the said property.

5. Subsequently, pursuant to an order passed in Execution proceeding, it appears that 12 plots bearing nos. 58, 57, 55, 87, 88, 81, 59, 52, 56, 60, 61 and 59 situated in Mohalla Juhi Khurd Kanpur city were auctioned and sold on 16.01.1971 for a sum of Rs.10,200/- and the said auction was finalized in favour of respondent 3, Mohd. Ali (hereinafter referred to as "Auction Purchaser").

6. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by Court to give possession of all the plots to Auction Purchaser, on 20.5.1979.

7. Since petitioner had no notice, information or opportunity of hearing in this matter i.e. execution case, consequently she filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 C.P.C. in Execution Case no.55 of 1968 and it was registered as Misc. Case No.357/74/79.

8. The application was opposed by Auction Purchaser as also respondent 4, Decree Holder. In support of petitioner's case, Sri Laxmi Kant Shukla was examined while Mohd. Ali himself examined as witness in support of his claim.

9. Execution Court formulated five issues as under :

^^1- D;k dkuiqj jksfyax feYl ds fo:) lwjt izlkn xqIrk dks eSusftax MkbZjsDVj crkrs gq, tks fMxzh izkIr dh x;h gS og oS/k gS o dEiuh ds Åij ck/;dkjh gS\

1. Whether the decree obtained against Kanpur Rolling Mills stating Suraj Prasad Gupta to be director is legal and binding upon the company?

2- D;k izkfFkZuh ds i{k esa dh x;h fodz;i= /kkjk 64 nhokuh izfdz;k lafgrk ls ckf/kr gS\

2. Whether the sale-deed executed in favour of the applicant is barred by Section 64 of Civil Procedure Code?

3- D;k izkfFkZuh fookfnr Hkwfe ds dCts esa vius vf/kdkj esa Fkh ;k dEiuh