COMMON ORDER

The Judgment Debtors 1, 2, and 5 filed C.R.P.No.6529 of 2012 against the order dated 31.07.2012 in E.A.No.356 of 2008, E.P.No.33 of 2003 in O.S.No.10 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ongole.

2. C.R.P.No.4657 of 2012 was filed by the 4^th respondent-auction purchaser (auction-not confirmed) against the order dated 31.07.2012 in E.A.No.357 of 2008 in E.P.No.33 of 2003 in O.S.No.10 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ongole.

3. a) One Kode Basava Venkateswara Rao, S/o Raghavaiah, 1^st respondent in C.R.P.No.6529 of 2012 and 4^th respondent in C.R.P.No.4657 of 2012 filed the suit O.S.No.10 of 1998 against M/s Acqua Dev India Limited and its Directors for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,61,027/- towards arrears of salary etc. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.2067 of 1998 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC and got attached the landed property of an extent of Ac.6.20 cents in different survey numbers of Maddipadu village on 15.10.1998. The attachment was made absolute on 12.10.1999. The defendants in the suit were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 17.04.2003. The decree holder filed E.P.No.33 of 2003 to execute the decree and an auction was conducted on 10.11.2004. The revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.4657 of 2012 became the highest bidder. The executing Court did not confirm the auction. b) One of the secured creditors filed Company Petition No.84 of

1996 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against M/s Acqua Dev India Limited, 1^st defendant in the suit, under Section 433 (e), 434 (1) (b) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of M/s Acqua Dev India Limited. On contest, the company petition was allowed on 05.08.1999. M/s Acqua Dev India Limited was wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act and the Official Liquidator was directed to take charge of the properties including ten pumps.

c) Neither the pendency of the company petition nor the winding up order was brought to the notice of the Civil Court. The defendants in the suit were set exparte and the Civil Court passed an exparte decree. The Directors of the 1^st defendant filed E.A.No.356 of 2008 under Sections 47 and 151 of CPC to declare the decree dated 17.04.2003 as null and void. He also filed E.A.No.357 of 2008 under Sections 47 and 151 of CPC to declare the sale and other execution proceedings conducted by the Court after 05.08.1999 as null and void.

d) In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, it was pleaded about the filing of the suit; attachment of property; exparte decree in the suit; filing of company petition; passing of wound-up order dated 05.08.1999 and publication of the same in newspapers. It was further pleaded that because of the wound-up order dated 05.08.1999, the plaintiff has no right to proceed in the suit, unless and until he gets the leave of the tribunal under Section 446 of the Companies Act. When once wound-up order was passed, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was subject to leave of the tribunal/company Court and thus, the decree and judgment in the suit is without jurisdiction and it is void. It was further pleaded that since the decree is void, the executing Court could not have proceeded with the execution of the decree. The plaintiff got knowledge of the order in company petition.

4. A counter was filed on behalf of the decree holder. It was contended, interalia, that the defendants filed written statement and later, they were set exparte. It was not pleaded in the written statement about the company petition. The other Directors filed E.As. as well as I.As. and they were dismissed. The petitioners earlier filed I.A.Nos.954 and 955 of

2007 and later not pressed the same.

5. The 4^th respondent filed a separate counter. It was contended that earlier E.A.Nos.919 and 920 of 2004 were filed and they were dismissed. E.A.Nos.1517 and 1518 of 2004 for restoration were filed and they were also dismissed. The 5^th defendant in the suit filed E.A.Nos.1022 and 1023 of 2007 and they