Judgment :- Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. Satna Stone and Lime Company Limited was wound up by this Court. The company had a landed asset being huge chunk of land in Madhya Pradesh. Pursuant to the order dated December 5, 2008 the Official Liquidator asked the appropriate authority at Madhya Pradesh for making necessary arrangement for handing over possession of 285.53 acres of land to the Official Liquidator. On April 12, 2010 the representative of the Official Liquidator went to take possession, he met the collector, Satna and inspected the landed property that was in the custody of the sub-divisional Magistrate, Satna. On December 21, 2010 the Official Liquidator published advertisement inviting claim from the creditors and ex-workers. On the same day Official Liquidator took symbolic possession of the land that had encroachment to a substantial extent. On March 14, 2011 this Hon’ble Court passed an order directing the Sarveshwari Mining Private Limited to deposit a sum of Rs.2,04,74,053 and asked the Official Liquidator to hand over physical possession to Sarveshwari after taking physical possession of the said land in question. From that day onwards the Official Liquidator made frantic attempts to take physical possession and hand over the same to Sarveshwari. However, due to agitation by the unauthorized occupants, it could not be done. The Official Liquidator submitted a report to the said extent on July 19, 2011. At that juncture one Amjad Ali claiming to be a resident of Village and Post Office- Siding, District-Satna Madhya Pradesh filed an application interalia praying for leave to institute a suit against the company in liquidation coupled with a prayer for perpetual injunction restraining eviction of the applicant and other members of the family. On perusal of the affidavit of Amjad Ali filed in support of the Judge’s summons that would reveal as follows: i) The subject land was within the Mouza siding that was subsequently divided into three villages being Bathiakala, Lalpur and Kohimakothar. The portion of the land claimed by him would situate at Bathiakala measuring about 5000 square feet having structure thereon comprising of six rooms, varandah, kitchen, privy, bath as well as trees and plants surrounded by stone boundary wall. They would claim to be residing more than 100 years. ii) Official Liquidator took symbolic possession deliberately illegally and intentionally that affected his vital right. They would claim to be residing more than 100 years. ii) Official Liquidator took symbolic possession deliberately illegally and intentionally that affected his vital right. iii) He preferred appeal against the order passed by the learned Company Judge directing taking over of possession when the Division Bench granted him liberty to approach the learned Company Judge. iv) Pursuant to such liberty he filed the application. He, however, did not disclose any document pertaining to the title to the property. The following documents were annexed to his affidavit: a) Voter list showing he was a voter in village Bathiakala. b) Illegible copy of the PAN Card. c) Voter Identity Card. d) Death certificate of one Ajmer Ali. e) Application for certified copy made by Amjad Ali for a copy of the deed of sale executed by one Safi Mohammad in favour of Prem Sankar Raijal being Deed No. 660 dated December 20, 1957. The learned Judge dismissed the application by observing, he could not prove his identity or produce any document to prove his title. The observation of His Lordship is quoted below: “None of the applications has been able to produce any title deed, any municipal record, land record, telephone bill, electricity bill, Voters Identity Card or PAN Card to establish any title or any possessory right over the lands in question.” Amjad preferred an appeal. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal by granting him leave to approach the learned Company Judge again. The Division Bench observed as follows: “Considering the rival contentions and the factual matrix, we do not feel any scope of interference. The learned Judge already observed that none of the appellants could produce their telephone bill, electricity bill, voters, identity card, pan card or any other personal document to establish their identity.” Pursuant to such liberty Amjad again approached the learned Single Judge. This time, he disclosed further documents. Amjad filed two supplementary affidavits disclosing further documents both before the Division Bench one at the earlier stage and the other at the present stage. The supplementary affidavit would contain further documents. The first supplementary affidavit disclosed the following documents: a) Letter dated May 28, 2009 addressed to the collector about the lime stone query. Amjad filed two supplementary affidavits disclosing further documents both before the Division Bench one at the earlier stage and the other at the present stage. The supplementary affidavit would contain further documents. The first supplementary affidavit disclosed the following documents: a) Letter dated May 28, 2009 addressed to the collector about the lime stone query. The sub-divisional officer Raghurajnagar in his letter observed, that newly surveyed plot of land was yet to be specified to indicate that the said plot did not form part of the land stone query. b) An application made to the collector by Bani Prasad Dahuja, Subhas Chandra and Prem Lal Raukura making objection to the survey report and praying for Halka Patoari record in respect of the land so that they could utilize the same for litigation. c) Applications for certified copy of the record pertaining to the mutation of the land. d) Affidavit of Amjad Ali that the concerned land at Bathiakala was in his possession and he would require copy of the document to the said effect. The second affidavit filed in this appeal would relate to the Court proceedings at Madhya Pradesh pertaining to settlement of query that would include settlement of query of Anod Jaiswal, the person having management and control of Sarveshwari. The learned Company Judge allowed the application vide judgment and order dated April 30, 2013 appearing at pages 38-40 of the paper book. Learned Judge asked Sarveshwari to assist the Official Liquidator in defending the suit. Being aggrieved, Sarveshwari filed the instant appeal that we heard on the above mentioned dates. Mr. Ahin Chowdhury learned senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal would contend, the order of the learned Single Judge did not disclose any reason. The learned Judge also did not consider the observation made earlier while dismissing the said application and such order merged with the order of the Court of appeal that granted Amjad to apply afresh. Mr. Chowdhury placed the judgment and order impugned and contended, the order was devoid of any reason. He would further contend, learned Judge earlier observed, the applicant failed to disclose documents pertaining to his identity or his nexus with the land in question. The Division Bench asked Amjad to take care of his short comings that the learned Judge earlier pointed out. Hence, the scope of the second application was very much limited. He would further contend, learned Judge earlier observed, the applicant failed to disclose documents pertaining to his identity or his nexus with the land in question. The Division Bench asked Amjad to take care of his short comings that the learned Judge earlier pointed out. Hence, the scope of the second application was very much limited. The applicant could not discharge his onus on that score. According to him, the documents mentioned in the earlier order were not produced and the documents produced were insufficient. Per contra, Ms. Sucharita Biswas learned Counsel appearing for Amjad would contend, the Division Bench granted liberty to apply afresh with sufficient materials. The applicant was able to discharge his onus. In any event, no finality was arrived at while granting leave under Section 446 to file a suit as against the company liquidation. In case Amjad was ultimately not successful in proving his title, the suit would automatically be dismissed. According to her, the appeal was not at all maintainable as no finality was arrived at by the said order. Ms. Biswas would rely upon the decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai Vs. Saiyed Mohmad Morasaheb Kadri and others reported in All India Reporter 1987 Supreme Court Page-1782. On a query made by this Court Ms. Biswas would contend, the applicant was content with the part of the land that was under his enjoyment for more than 100 years. He would not stand in the way in case Official Liquidator would take physical possession of the entire land in question so long Official Liquidator would not disturb his possession. Ms. Ruma Sikdar learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator supported the appeal and contended, the applicant miserably failed to disclose document as to his domicile status or his nexus to the land in question. As per the survey record, the land belonged to the company liquidation as would appear from the documents and the report hence, the Official Liquidator would be entitled to take possession of land in question by removing the encroachments, if any. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The controversy would have two limbs: i) The right of the applicant to file a suit against the company in liquidation for establishing his title. ii) Right of the Official Liquidator to take physical possession by using force on the strength of the earlier orders of this Court. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The controversy would have two limbs: i) The right of the applicant to file a suit against the company in liquidation for establishing his title. ii) Right of the Official Liquidator to take physical possession by using force on the strength of the earlier orders of this Court. It is settled proposition of law; no one is entitled to evict anyone without any due process of law. The Official Liquidator is in deemed possession of the land in question belonging to the company in liquidation. The local administration must render all necessary help to assist the Official Liquidator in discharging his duty in terms of the order of the Court. The Official Liquidator, while discharging such duty, would be entitled to free access to the land in question and any person unauthorisedly disturbing him or obstructing him, must be dealt with in accordance with law. This is the settled proposition that we do not wish to deliberate any further. We once again make it clear, such issue was not the subject matter of the application resulting the judgment and order impugned hence, the Court of appeal was not competent to issue any direction in this regard that would take care of the second issue. Any person being a citizen of the country is entitled to ventilate his right before a Court of law, be it his constitutional right, be it contractual right or be it his personal right. Once he would feel, his right is disturbed he is free to approach the Court of law. Once he approaches the Court of law, it is for the Court to decide whether such approach is lawful or permissible. If it is not so, the Court of law would rule on the same accordingly. Without a decision from the Court neither any litigation could be rejected in limine nor anyone could put obstacle in such process. Section 446 would restrict such right to a certain extent. It is not an obstacle; it is rather a check on the frivolous litigations. A company is a juristic entity. It can sue or be sued. However, when it goes in liquidation the Official Liquidator becomes the custodian of the company in liquidation when its existence is put under suspended animation. It is not an obstacle; it is rather a check on the frivolous litigations. A company is a juristic entity. It can sue or be sued. However, when it goes in liquidation the Official Liquidator becomes the custodian of the company in liquidation when its existence is put under suspended animation. Since the Official Liquidator is obliged to wind up the business of the company for the benefit of the creditors, shareholders, and workers at large such process must be smooth and any suit against the company in liquidation that too, without any fatter, would have tremendous repercussion on such beneficial winding up and it might be difficult for the Official Liquidator to defend such proceedings. Section 446 was incorporated so that any plaintiff desirous of filing a suit or proceeding against the company in liquidation would have to approach the learned Company Judge under whose supervision the liquidator would work so that the Court could examine the nature of the right as also put condition on exercise of such right. The logic behind it is quiet strong as discussed before. However, such examination of right could not be construed to be a decision on such right. In short, grant of leave under Section 446 would not amount to decreeing the suit or allowing the proceeding to be initiated by the plaintiffs/applicant as the case may be. Coming back to the present scenario, the learned Judge very rightly rejected the first application as it was devoid of any particulars. His Lordship was not satisfied about the identity of the person, far to speak of his nexus to the land in question, hence, observed, as quoted supra. The Division Bench upheld the said order, however, granted an opportunity to approach the learned Judge again. This time the applicants disclosed further documents. We fully agree with Mr. Chowdhury, the documents were insufficient. However, such insufficiency might lead to a failure that the applicant would likely to suffer if he files a suit on such material. However, the documents so disclosed and discussed above through both supplementary affidavits, could not be said to be so irrelevant to deny him leave to file a suit. We abundantly make it clear, in case such suit is filed it must be in this Court so that the Official Liquidator does not feel any difficulty in contesting the suit. However, the documents so disclosed and discussed above through both supplementary affidavits, could not be said to be so irrelevant to deny him leave to file a suit. We abundantly make it clear, in case such suit is filed it must be in this Court so that the Official Liquidator does not feel any difficulty in contesting the suit. We once again make it clear, mere grant of leave would not extend any blessing to Amjad to retain possession of the portion of the property in question that he claimed to be in possession. The grant of leave must not create any hindrance in the way of the Official Liquidator to comply with the earlier decisions of the Court. In short, it must not give any respite to the applicant which he is otherwise not entitled to, in law. In course of hearing, we enquired whether the applicant would be in a position to secure the cost that the Official Liquidator might incur for defending the suit. Ms. Biswas expressed her willingness to do so. We thus, dispose of the appeal by making the observations as above. We direct the respondent No. 1 to deposit sum of Rs.1 lac to the Official Liquidator for the time being, to meet the expenses for contesting the suit. We would also ask Sarveshwari to render all necessary assistance to the Official Liquidator in defending such suit, if filed in this Court. The appeal is disposed of without any further order as to costs. Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J: I agree.