THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO REVIEW.ASMP.No.268 of 2010 And A.S.No.836 of 1998 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR, J) Heard both sides. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner, who seeks to review the Judgment in the main appeal is to the effect that having regard to the dismissal of the connected appeal in O.S.A.No.32 of 2005, necessarily, it should lead to declare the decree in the suit, which is under appeal as nullity. There is no dispute to the fact that the subject matter in this appeal, which is separately disposed of and the subject matter in O.S.A.No.32 of 2005 one and the same, and it is a property which is a matter of subject of liquidation and other proceedings. The attempt on the part of the Corporation to seek cancellation thereof was set at naught. Further, this Court while disposing of the appeal specifically observed by referring to the proceedings in O.S.A.No.32 of 2005 as well to the effect that the proceedings in O.S.7 of 1987 are virtually non-est and void as they are contrary to the Sections 446 and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956. Further, this Court observed that since the claim of the respondent-plaintiff is negatived, the question of upholding the appellants’ claim does not arise, and therefore, it follows that if at all any party is aggrieved by any proceedings, it is open for them to approach Company Court for appropriate relief, however, dismissed the appeal. The suit is one for recovery of possession and for mandatory and perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property and the same was ultimately decreed, which is being appealed against. Necessarily, it follows that having regard to the observations made whatever be the relief or remedy to which either of the parties are entitled, could not have possibly approached the Civil Court and obtained any decree. In view o the same, in spite of allowing the appeal on the very same ground and the reason, which has been shown in the judgment, it was read as dismissed. There is thus an error apparent on the face of the record. The review application is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 15-4-2009 dismissing A.S.No.836 of 1998 is set aside and the same stands allowed for the reasons already stated above. Consequently, the suit O.S.No.7 of 1987 stands dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs. ___________________ (B PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) DATE: 14-04-2011 grk