IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA COMP. APP. No.17 of 2009 1.Dr. Sunil Das Gupta son of late Dr. Surendra Das Gupta, Lal Kothi Tetarpur P.S. Tetarpur District-Bhagalpur. 2. Tarun Das Gupta aged about 43 years son of Sri Bijendra Das Gupta resident of Muhalla 16 Bose Park P.S. Kotwali Mahatma Gandhi Road Bhagalpur District- Bhagalpur ---- Intervenors/ Appellants. Versus 1. M/S Standard Savings & Investment Company Ltd.(in Liquidation) through the Official Liquidator Maurya Lok Block A 4th Floor, Dak Banglow Road, Patna. 2. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Ex. M.D. S/O Sri Mahabir Pd. R/Mohalla Gola Ghat Chowk, Bhagalpur ---- Respondent/Respondents. ----------- 6. 25.1.2010 Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh for the appellants, and Mr. Gautam Kejriwal for the respondents. This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act 1956, has been preferred by a person who claims to be the landlord who had alienated lands in favour of the company which is now under liquidation. After liquidation, the official liquidator took possession of the companies’ properties covering a total area of 29520 sf. ft. which includes an area of 3780 sf. ft., butted and bounded by a boundary wall, and auction sale of the same has been permitted. The appellants contention before the learned Company Judge was that the said area covering 3780 sf.ft., being part of the said 2 29520 sq.ft., is his own land which was never sold to the company, and the latter has encroached upon it or, is in permissive possession of it, and that is how possession of extra land with the official liquidator. He, therefore, prayed before the learned Company Judge to release 3780 sf.ft. from auction sale. The contention has been disposed of by the learned Company Judge by the order dated 15.5.2009 (Annexure-1), and impugned herein, with the following observations: “In the circumstances, no modification at all is required to be made in the sale-notice. The applicant and Govind Das Shastri, if aggrieved by such notice, are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for recovery of their possession over 3780 sf.ft. of land. Official Liquidator is at liberty to publish the sale notice once again.” We are of the view that the interest of the appellants has been protected by the impugned order by permitting him to approach the civil court. We note to our dismay that the appellants have not so far approached the civil court for redressal of their grievances. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, as prayed for by learned counsel for the 3 appellants, they may approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of grievances, in view of the observations of the learned Company Judge, whereafter it will be open to him to approach the learned Company Judge for appropriate order, if any, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the appellant’s proposed suit shall be subject to the law of limitation. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal,J.)