1 D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (COMPANY) NO.4/2005 THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. V. M/S. MEWAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 24/04/2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. N. BHANDARI Mr. Vikas Balia, for Appellant. Mr.Manoj Bhandari, for Respondent No.3. Mr. Shyam Toshniwal for Mr. N.M.Lodha, AAG, for State. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.12.2004 passed in S. B. Company Petition No. 8/2000. By the order dated 06.12.2004, a direction was given to the State Government for putting sale of different assets. The appeal has been preferred to challenge the jurisdiction of the Company Judge to pass such an order. During the pendency of the appeal, Company Judge passed another order on 11.12.2007, as informed by the learned counsel for the parties. By the order dated 11.12.2007, a Committee has been constituted for making assessment of the property. It is contended by the learned 2 counsel for the appellant that he has moved applications for appropriate order by the Company Judge. In view of the above, it is stated that so far as the present appeal is concerned, literally, it has become infructuous, in view of the subsequent development and the order passed by the Company Judge on 11.12.2007. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that challenge to the issue of jurisdiction of the Company Judge should be kept alive by giving liberty to appellant to challenge the said issue in appropriate proceedings. It is further prayed that the applications moved by the appellant should also be kept alive an uneffected by the impugned order. It is thus prayed that if such liberty is given, the present appeal can be disposed of. Needless to say that if the subsequent order is passed by the Company Judge on 11.12.2007, obviously the Committee will make assessment of the property and the applications separately maintained by the appellant would be decided on its own merit and as per law, it goes without saying that the appellant would be at liberty to pursue 3 those applications separately. In view of the above observations, nothing more survives in this appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed with observation. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. (NARAYAN ROY), C.J. scd