IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA COMPANY APPEAL(DB) No.9 of 2010 1. Rajesh Verma 2. Rakesh Verma, both sons of Sri Gangadhar Verma and resident of New Area, Piparpanti, P.S. Gaya, Town and District- Gaya ---- Applicants/Appellants. Versus M/S Shiv Shakti Builders and Financial Company Ltd. through the Official Liquidator, Patna High Court, 4th Floor, Block-A, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. ----------- 5. 2.8.2011 Heard Mr. Laxmi Narain Das for the appellants, and the learned Official Liquidator. This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 1.4.2010, passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 7 of 1998 (In the matter of Shivshakti Builders & Financial Company Limited), whereby the registered sale deed in favour of the present appellants has been set aside. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The respondent Company, a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Act, was engaged in the sale and purchase of landed properties. The Company had purchased the lands in question by registered sale deed dated 27.12.1995 and 13.12.1995. The Company filed a 2 petition on 15.4.1998 in terms of Section 440 of the Act, praying for its voluntary winding-up which has been registered as Company Petition No. 7 of 1998. By order dated 15.5.1998, the Official Liquidator was provisionally appointed. One of the Director’s of the Company executed registered sale deed on 19.5.1998, with respect to the land in question in favour of Surjit Singh and others who, in their turn, executed registered sale deeds dated 18.6.1999 and 18.12.1999, in favour of the appellants. 2.i) In view of the report dated 2.12.2008 of the learned Official Liquidator, the learned Company Judge had issued notices to the present appellants as well as Surjit Singh and others. The appellants appeared, contested the report, and supported the sale deeds. On a consideration of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants herein and the learned Official Liquidator, the sale deeds in favour of Surjit Singh and others, as well as the sale deeds in favour of the appellants herein, have been set aside, leading to the present appeal. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that neither the vendor of Surjit 3 Singh and others, nor the vendors of the present appellants, have been impleaded as party respondents. The appeal can not proceed in the absence of the necessary parties. 4. The appeal is dismissed. ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) Vinay/ ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)