JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The plaintiff company, instituted, a suit for specific performance, against, the defendants. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff company, by its, ordering for realization from the defendants'' concerned, an amount of Rs. 2,30, 000/- along with proportionate costs, and, interest at the rate 6% p.a., from, the date of institution of the suit, till, realization of the decretal amount. The defendants being aggrieved therefrom, hence instituted, the, instant appeal before this Court. However, during the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, an application cast under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, was moved before this Court by the aggrieved defendants, wherein they sought the leave of this Court to place on record Ext. DW-3/A, Ext. DW-3/B, and, Ext. DW-3/C, (i) wherein unfoldments, are, borne vis- -vis the decree holder plaintiff company being no longer in existence, given, it being struck off, from, the rolls, in, the year 2010, by the Registrar of Companies. The apposite leave as asked, for, by the aggrieved defendants from this Court, was, hence granted. Thereafter, one Anil Kumar, employed, as a Junior Technical Assistant, in, the office of the Registrar of Companies, rendered a testification, on, 12.8.2018, wherein he has proven, the, apt contents, borne, in the aforesaid exhibits. His testification, was, subjected, to, an ordeal of an exacting cross-examination, yet, in the apposite ordeal, the counsel for the defendants'', was, unable to elicit any articulation from him, for hence ripping apart, the veracity, of, the afore exhibits. Nowat with the plaintiff, being a juristic person, and, also acquiring, a, juristic personality, in pursuance to it being registered, with, the Registrar of Companies, (ii) whereas in the year 2010, after a pronouncement in the affirmative, being made upon the plaintiff''s suit, for, specific performance, and, during, the, pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, hence, the, apt dissolution besides extinguishment, of, its corporate, and, juristic personality has occurred, thereupon, the sequel thereof, is qua the decree being hence rendered unabled, for, its efficacious execution. 2. In aftermath, with the apposite decree being rendered inefficacious besides with the plaintiff company being no longer in existence, whereupon even if the appeal fails, it is still not amenable, for its being put into coercive execution, thereupon the plaintiff, is, non-suited, and the appeal rather enjoins its being allowed. 3. 2. In aftermath, with the apposite decree being rendered inefficacious besides with the plaintiff company being no longer in existence, whereupon even if the appeal fails, it is still not amenable, for its being put into coercive execution, thereupon the plaintiff, is, non-suited, and the appeal rather enjoins its being allowed. 3. In view of the above observations, the appeal is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.