C. P. SINHA, C. J. : This appeal has been filed by the appellant against an order, dated 4-9-58, passed by Mr. Justice Mehrotra, the Company Judge, in the course of a winding up proceeding of the company known as M/s. N. K. Bhattacharjee and Sons (Private) Limited. This winding up proceeding was started at the instance of a creditor. In pursuance of an order of this Court, dated 27-6-57, the official liqui­dator wanted to sell the immovable properties of the company at Shillong, and he was given the ne­cessary directions by this Court on 6-12-57. In pursuance or those directions, the matter was advertised in papers and two persons, namely, the appellant J. N. Bowri and the respondent, M/s. Hanuman Bux Inderchand, offered to purchase the property. The appellant had offered at first a sum of Rs. 80,000 which he later increased to Rs. 94,251. The other side, M/s Hanuman Bux Inder­chand, gave an offer of Rs. 91,000, which they later increased to Rs. 1,03,001. This later offer of the respondent M/s Hanuman Bux Inderchand was accepted by the official liquidator after approval by the Court. This approval was conveyed to the respondent by a letter of the official liquidator, dated 10th June, 1958, and, by a letter, dated the 13th June, 1958, the respondent acknowledged acceptance of his offer and enclosed a cheque for Rs. 10,000 towards" part-payment of the consideration. An application was filed by the appellant on 12-6-58, for reconsi­deration of die matter and for an order that the property may be sold to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000. This application was heard and orders were passed on 4-9-58, and the Court held that it saw no reason to modify its order of 6th June. 1958, and, as I have said, it is against this order that the appeal has been filed. 1,05,000. This application was heard and orders were passed on 4-9-58, and the Court held that it saw no reason to modify its order of 6th June. 1958, and, as I have said, it is against this order that the appeal has been filed. (2-3) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal on three grounds- (i) that no appeal lies for the reason that the appellant was not a party to the proceeding, namely, the proceeding for winding up; (ii) that the order is not at all appealable; and (iii) that no appeal having been preferred against the order, dated 6-6-58, even if an appeal Jay and if the present appeal be taken to have been an appeal against the original order, dated 6-6-58, it has long been time-barred. (4) The relevant provision of the Indian Com­panies Act is section 483 which provides for appeal in the following terms: "Appeals from any order made, or decision given, in the matter of the winding up of a com­pany by the Court, shall lie to the same Court to which, in the same manner in which, and subject ,to the same conditions under which, appeals lie from any order or decision of the Court in cases within its ordinary jurisdiction.'' The same provision was contained in the old sec­tion 202 and it was considered in several cases. In the matter of East India Cotton Mills Ltd., 52 Cal WN 534: (AIR 1949 Cal 69), Mr. Justice S. R. Das, (as he then was) had considered the matter at great length, and after referring to a large number of decisions, he held that under section 202, no ap­peal lies by a person who is not a party to the proceeding. The present case is much stronger than the case which was before his Lordship. In that case, the appellants were two of the creditors and they had been served with due notice, but they had not appeared and it was held that because they had not appeared in the proceeding for winding up, they were not parties to the procee­ding, and, therefore, they were not entitled to file an appeal. To the like effect is the case of Motilal Kanji and Co. v. Natvarlal M. Jhaveri, AIR 1932 Bom 78. To the like effect is the case of Motilal Kanji and Co. v. Natvarlal M. Jhaveri, AIR 1932 Bom 78. In that case also, it was held that a person who was not a party to the winding up proceeding but who was merely the propounder of certain scheme, was not entitled to appeal. On the other hand, Mr. Ghose the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, has referred to a case reported as Bachharaj Factories Ltd. v. Hirjee Mills Ltd., (S) AIR 1955 Bom 355 , but with great respect to the learned counsel, it must be said that in that case the appeal was filed by a person who was very much a party to the proceeding inasmuch as it was at his instance that the winding up proceeding had been started. In my judgment, therefore, that case is of little help to us so far as the present case is concerned. In this view of the matter, it must be held that the appeal is incompetent on the ground that the appellant was not a party to the proceeding. Apart, therefore, from other points taken by the learned Advocate General, it must be held that the appel­lant had no right to come up in appeal. (5) In view of our decision on this first ques­tion, the other questions need not be tackled. The appeal, therefore, fails and it must be dismissed with costs. (6) H. DEKA, J. : I agree. JC/V.S.B. Appeal dismissed.