Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 111.2002 passed by the learned Company Judge while dealing with the Company Petition No.9/1998 DSM Andeno vs. M/S. Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd by which the learned Judge was pleased to reject the application of the appellant which had been filed for recalling the order dated 10.04.2002 by which service on the respondent was treated as sufficient and hence complete. The appellant M/s. Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd which has been impleaded as a party in the Company petition is a proceeding for winding up of this Company which is still pending consideration before the Company Judge in which notice had been issued. As per the finding recorded by the learned Company Judge, service of notice on the respondent M/s. Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. the appellant herein in the Company petition for winding up was treated as complete as the learned Judge recorded a finding that the notice had been served on the respondent Company through the representatives of the Company and it had also been advertised in two national daily newspapers viz. Indian Express (Delhi Edition) and Dainik Bhasker (Alwar, Jaipur Edition). The appellant had felt aggrieved the fact that the notice in regard to the winding up of the Company had not been duly served on the respondent/appellant herein and hence its publication in the newspapers also was not justified. The learned Judge, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, was pleased to reject the application for recalling the order dated 10.4.2002 by which service on the respondent-appellant herein was treated as sufficient. 2. Challenging the order of the learned Company Judge, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Bhandari that the manner in which the notice had been treated to have been served on the appellant-Company, ought not to have been treated as sufficient service by the learned Company Judge and in this regard he has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. However, we have noticed that this provision is in regard to the legal suspension of proceedings and contracts in regard to the sick Company and this is not the stage where suspension of legal proceeding of the appellant Company can be considered as this is still subjudice before the Company Judge. However, we have noticed that this provision is in regard to the legal suspension of proceedings and contracts in regard to the sick Company and this is not the stage where suspension of legal proceeding of the appellant Company can be considered as this is still subjudice before the Company Judge. The limited question on the basis of which the application seeking recall of the order dated 10.04.2002 had been sought, was for want of service/insufficient service and, therefore, at the stage of appeal against that order, we would not like to traverse beyond what has been adjudged and recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned order. In the order under challenge, it is clear that the limited question before the learned Judge was whether the notice in regard to the winding up of the Company had been duly served on the appellant or not and we have noticed that although the notice has been alleged not to have been served on the appellant Company herein, in fact the notice had been duly and legally served on the Company through its authorised representative and, therefore, the appellant-Company cannot be allowed to raise a grievance that the service had not been effected on the appellant. We are however, also conscious of the fact that the winding up proceeding vide the Company Petition No. 9/1998 has not yet been concluded and it is still subjudice before the Company Judge and hence in our view the rule under the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard should not be allowed to be adhered to in a such manner that the affected party is precluded from participating in the proceeding before the Company Court merely on the ground of want of sufficient service of notice as that is bound to result into passing of an ex parte order and might thus result into miscarriage of justice. In order to meet the ends of justice therefore, we feel that it would be just and appropriate to permit the appellant Company to file its power before the Company Judge in order to contest the Company petition on merit and after appearance it is free to take recourse to the procedure that may be available to it under the Companies Act read with Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 3. The appeal with this liberty is disposed of .