ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants have invited our attention to the following portion of the impugned order: "Therefore, the only question which remains is whether the said property cannot be the subject-matter of this execution proceeding in view of the fact that it has been mortgaged with Peerless. In fact there is no mortgage decree and Peerless instead of proceeding with the mortgage has filed a winding-up proceeding. Peerless has also not filed any mortgage suit under Order 34 of the Civil Procedure Code." 4. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the High Court without notice to the present appellants made the above observations that in the absence of a mortgage decree the appellants could not proceed under the mortgage deed. It is pointed out that the appellant Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. had already obtained a decree based on mortgage. This mistake has occurred in the order of the High Court because the appellant Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. was not a party and was not noticed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. and Respondent 2 in SLP (C) No. 15015 of 2004 agree that the order of the High Court be set aside and the matters be remitted back to the executing court for rehearing. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the case to the executing court i.e. the learned Single Judge of the High Court on the original side for deciding the matters afresh after hearing all affected parties. We make it clear that all contentions, legal and factual, shall be open to be urged by the parties before the executing court. 6. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.