ORDER : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. This O.J. Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the learned Company Judge in OLR No.64 of 2020 whereby the learned Company Judge permitted the Official Liquidator to file First Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the Decree dated 23.01.2008 passed by the City Civil Court, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.842 of 2007. 2. The present Appeal has been filed by Legal Representatives of deceased Ratilal Chunilal Rana and deceased Parvatiben Ratilal Rana seeking leave of this Court to file the present Appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Company Judge of 10.12.2020, the relevant portion of which is quoted below for ready reference: “2. The prayer in the present application is that the Official Liquidator be permitted to prefer First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure with necessary application to challenge the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2008 passed by the City Civil Court, Vadodar in Regular Civil Suit No. 842 of 2007. 3. The Official Liquidator Report indicates that by an order dated 20.03.2003 in Company Petition No.205 of 1998, the company was ordered to be wound up and an Official Liquidator was appointed. The Official Liquidator took over the possession of the estate on 05.06.2003. An application being Company Application No. 8 of 2019 was served on the liquidator with a prayer not to include the land situated at District Vadodara bearing T.P. Scheme No. 5 Final Plot 337 admeasuring 21739 sq. mtrs. on the east side of the said plot lying on City Survey No. 295, 298 and 335 bearing revenue survey no. 849 paiki and 857/12 and several other connected survey numbers on the ground that they are owners and in possession of the land as per the registered sale deed in their favour. According to the report, it appears that the occupants of the said property had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 842 of 2007. The said suit came to be allowed on 23.01.2008 and the defendants i.e. Anand Cotspin Limited were restrained from disturbing the possession of the land in question. The case of the Official Liquidator is that they ought to have been joined as party to the suit in para 7. The said suit came to be allowed on 23.01.2008 and the defendants i.e. Anand Cotspin Limited were restrained from disturbing the possession of the land in question. The case of the Official Liquidator is that they ought to have been joined as party to the suit in para 7. Reliance is placed on Section 446(1) of the Companies Act to suggest that no suit or legal proceedings shall commence if on the date when the company is wound up without joining the official liquidator and without leave of the court. It is on this ground that the prayer is made. 4. In view of the above, the prayer of the Official Liquidator is granted in terms of para 8(A) of the application. OLR No. 64 of 2020 is accordingly allowed.” 3. Though OLR No.64 of 2020 made various prayers, the learned Company Judge only granted prayer 8(A) permitting Official Liquidator to file First Appeal. The prayers in OLR No.64 of 2020 are quoted below: “8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Official Liquidator most respectfully seeks following orders and directions of this Hon'ble Court:( A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator under Section 457(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 to prefer First Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code with necessary applications in the District Court at Vadodara challenging the Judgment & decree dated 23.01.2008 passed by City Civil Court, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.842 of 2007. (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside sale deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Vadodara1, dated 28.10.2013 registered on 11.11.2013 with respect to land stiuated at District – Vadodara bearing TP Scheme No.5, Final Plot No.337 admeasuring 21739 sq. mtrs. paiki 5882 sq. mtrs. on east side of the said plot lying at City Survey No.295, 298 and 335 bearing Revenue Survey No.849 paiki and 857/12 and direct the occupants to handover the possession of aforesaid land of the company in liquidation to the Official Liquidator. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside sale deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Vadodara1, dated 28.10.2013 registered on 02.01.2014 with respect to land situated at District – Vadodara bearing Revenue Survey No.858 in City Survey No.22 admeasuring Acre 0 – 32 Guntha i.e. 34848 sq. feet i.e. 3237.46 sq. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside sale deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Vadodara1, dated 28.10.2013 registered on 02.01.2014 with respect to land situated at District – Vadodara bearing Revenue Survey No.858 in City Survey No.22 admeasuring Acre 0 – 32 Guntha i.e. 34848 sq. feet i.e. 3237.46 sq. mtrs and direct the occupants to handover the possession of aforesaid land of the company in liquidation to the Official Liquidator. (D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside sale deed registered before the SubRegistrar, Vadodara1, dated 28.10.2013 registered on 11.11.2013 with respect to land situated at District – Vadodara bearing Revenue Survey No.856 admeasuring 10825 sq. mtrs. at City Survey No.331 lying and situated TP Scheme No.5 bearing Final Plot No.338 having final area of 10875 sq. mtrs and direct the occupants to handover the possession of aforesaid land of the company in liquidation to the Official Liquidator. (E) Such other and further orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed.” 4. Learned counsel for the Applicants / Appellants Mr.Tirthraj Pandya submitted that without giving an opportunity of hearing or impleading the present Appellants on the Report of the Official Liquidator viz. OLR No.64 of 2020 with regard to the company M/s. Anand Cotspin Limited (In Liquidation), the learned Company Judge ought not to have granted the said permission to the Official Liquidator to file First Appeal against the Decree dated 23.01.2008 in Regular Civil Suit No.842 of 2007 which was filed by the present Appellants for seeking ownership right by way of adverse possession on land bearing Survey Nos.856, 857 and 858 at Panigate area of Vadodara City and an ex parte Decree was granted on 23.01.2008 in their favour against Anand Cotspin Limited and therefore, the present Appellants / Applicants seeking leave also ought to have been heard by the learned Company Judge before passing the said order. The said ex parte Decree dated 23.01.2008 is also quoted below to relevant extract: “IN THE COURT OF 6TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VADODARA (SHRI J.K. GHOGRA) Reg. Civil Suit No.842/07 Plaintiffs: 1. Bhagvandas Nanku Yadav 2. Heirs of deceased Ranchhodbhai Mathurbhai Rajput 1. Kantaben widow of Ranchhodbhai Mathurbhai Rajput 2. Sukhdevbhai Ranchhodbhai Rajput 3. Dilipbhai Ranchhodbhai Rajput 3. Heirs of deceased Arjunbhai Chunibhai 1. Sanjivbhai @ Dhananjay Arjunbhai 4. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VADODARA (SHRI J.K. GHOGRA) Reg. Civil Suit No.842/07 Plaintiffs: 1. Bhagvandas Nanku Yadav 2. Heirs of deceased Ranchhodbhai Mathurbhai Rajput 1. Kantaben widow of Ranchhodbhai Mathurbhai Rajput 2. Sukhdevbhai Ranchhodbhai Rajput 3. Dilipbhai Ranchhodbhai Rajput 3. Heirs of deceased Arjunbhai Chunibhai 1. Sanjivbhai @ Dhananjay Arjunbhai 4. Heirs of deceased Maganbhai Gavabhai 1. Savitaben Maganbhai 5. Bhailal Raijibhai Rajput 6. Heirs of deceased Ratilal Chunilal 1. Rana Pravinbhai Ratilal 7. Heirs of Kantilal Jivanbhai 1. Rana Rameshbhai Kantilal 8. Shankerlal Marwadi All resident of P.G. Textile Mill, Panigate, Nr. Bhradra, Vadodara Bhagvandas Nanku Yadav, Power of Attorney of No.2 to 8, P.G. Textile Mill, Outside Panigate, Vadodara v/s. Defendant: Anand Cotton Mill Limited P.G. Textile Mill Compound, Outside Panigate, Nr. Bhradra, Vadodara L.A. Shri Nilesh S. Joshi for Plaintiffs L.A. Shri … … … for the Defendant ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby allowed. It is hereby declared that the land bearing Revenue Survey No.856, admeasuring 10825, R.S. No.857 admeasuring 20943, R.S. No.857/2, admeasuring 00607, R.S. No.858/1 admeasuring 03237 are the ownership of defendant, situated in Panigate area of Vadodara city, of which the plaintiffs are in occupation and possession since more than 47 years within the knowledge of defendant without any obstructing and interference and hence plaintiffs have got ownership rights by adverse possession and became owner. The defendant is hereby permanently restrained by permanent injunction taking law in hands and from taking possession of the suit land without due process of law from the plaintiffs, as they have no right over the suit property / lands. The defendant is ordered to bear the costs of plaintiffs and bear his own. Decree be drawn accordingly. Pronounced today in open court on this 23rd day of January, 2008.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellants / Applicants and learned counsel for Official Liquidator, we are not inclined to entertain the said Original Jurisdictional Appeal by granting leave to the present Appellants / Applicants for the following reasons: (a) By the order dated 10.12.2020, the learned Company Judge has only granted prayer 8(A) of said OLR No.64 of 2020 and the Official Liquidator has been permitted to file First Appeal to claim Company's rights over the land in question, for the company in liquidation namely, M/s. Anand Cotspin Limited (In Liquidation) against which said Ex parte Decree dated 23.01.2008 was obtained by the Plaintiffs. The order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the learned Company Judge is only an administrative order passed by the learned Company Judge permitting the Official Liquidator to avail the right of appeal on behalf of the company in liquidation and this administrative order does not affect any rights of the present Appellants and therefore, they don't have any right of hearing before passing of such order by learned Company Judge and it cannot be said to be wrong or illegal in any manner. Secondly, the present Applicants can very well oppose the First Appeal itself when filed at the appropriate forum, if they can do so on merits. 6. Therefore, such administrative order is not required to be interfered by the Division Bench of this Court in the present Original Jurisdictional Appeal nor the Applicants deserve to be granted any such leave to appeal. 7. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this Appeal or grant leave to appeal to the present Appellants / Applicants because that in our opinion will unnecessarily spill the litigation on a wrong route, which we consider wholly unnecessary and uncalled for. 8. Therefore, with these observations, the Application namely, R/Civil Application No.882 of 2021 for seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, O.J. Appeal No.8156 of 2021 arising out of OLR No.64 of 2020 is also dismissed. No costs. 9. Copy of this order be sent to the opposite parties and one copy be also placed on the record of OLR No.64 of 2021 disposed of by learned Company Judge on 10.12.2020. No Costs.