JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J.— As per office note, this appeal is barred by 37 days. M.C.A. No. 2046 of 2009 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Before issuance of the notice of the said application, we thought it fit to hear learned Counsel for the appellant, on merits. That is how we have heard him. Record perused. 2. The appellant herein had moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the learned company judge in Company Application No. 167 of 2004 on June 1, 2004. 3. The appellant claims to be one of the directors of M/s. Deepthi Cements P. Ltd., which has been directed to be wound up in terms of the order passed by the learned company judge on September 15, 1995, passed in Company Petition No. 158 of 1992. 4. Prayer of the appellant before the learned company judge and reiterated before us in this appeal was that the appellant should have been given an opportunity of hearing, before the properties belonging to the company, were directed to be sold by public auction. It has been contended so on the ground that the appellant happens to be one of the guarantors to the loan taken by the company from respondent No. 1, M/s. Karnataka State Finance Corporation and additionally he also happens to be the erstwhile director of the company, M/s. Deepthi Cements P. Ltd., which has been directed to be wound up. 5. Lastly, it was contended that the property worth more than Rs. 3 crores had been sold for a sum of Rs. 29,56,000 to the disadvantage of the appellant as also the company. 6. The same grounds mentioned hereinabove were urged before the learned company judge, who proceeded to consider the same but vide the impugned order rejected it. 7. We fail to understand as to how and under which provisions of law, the appellant should have been given an opportunity of hearing, before the property belonging to the company, directed to be wound up, were put to auction sale. It was not his property. He only happens to be the erstwhile director of the company, which was directed to be wound up. It was not his property. He only happens to be the erstwhile director of the company, which was directed to be wound up. Only because he happens to be a guarantor, he could not have been clothed with the said relief of granting him an opportunity of hearing. The persons concerned with the sale of the immovable property of the company, were already noticed and only thereafter the property has been put to auction sale, pursuant to the order passed under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant has been always ready and willing to settle the matter with respondent No. 1, but nothing is coming forth in this direction. However, the appellant would still be at liberty to approach respondent No. 1 for settling the matter out of court, if reasonable amount is offered, as one-time settlement. We have no doubt in our mind that if such a step is taken by the appellant, why respondent No. 1 would not come to settle the matter for all times to come. 9. Appeal being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. Consequently, M.C.A. No. 2046 of 2009 filed for condonation of delay also stands rejected.