R.N.Gurtu, J. - (1.) This small cause court civil revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act arises out of an Execution Case No. 282 of 1955. An application for execution of the decree was made by the decree holder, the Akhara Panchayati, against Tulshiram Sinha the applicant in this revision. An objection was taken by the applicant that the decree was not liable to be executed against him until it had been put into execution against another judgment-debtor, namely, Benos Sericum Ltd., and there was a failure to realise the decretal amount from the said judgment-debtor. The applicant relied upon the decree itself. A plain copy of the decree has been handed over to me in regard to the correctness of which there is no dispute and which I am putting on the record. The relevant portion of the decree runs as follows: "The suit for recovery of Rs. 1000/- is decreed against the defendants in terms of the compromise which shall form part of the decree- SHARAYAT SULAHNAMA. 1. Yeh ki darmiyan muddai wa muddalya Nos. 1, 3, 4 hash zail musalihat ho gai. Ka. Yeh ki dawa muddai mai kharcha muqadma digree kiya jawai. Kha. Yeh ki muddai apna mutalba muddlah No. 5 se wasul karega. Agar muddalah No. 5 se mutalba muddai wasul na ho sake to us surat men muddai baqiya muddalahum ya jis muddalah se chahe apna mutalba wasul karne ka majaj hoga and yahi sharayat muddalah number do par bhi lagoo hoga. Ga. Yeh ki muddai wa muddalah number 1, 3, 4 aclalat se istudwa karte hain ki hash Sharayat munderja bala dawa digree kiya jawai." The Small Cause Court ordered execution against the applicant on the ground that Banos Sericum Ltd. had gone into liquidation and was of the view that the decree-holder was entitled to proceed against the applicant judgment-debtor.
(2.) In this revision it is contended that the Small Cause Court was in error in ordering execution as against the applicant.
(3.) There can be no doubt that the compromise decree clearly indicated that execution was to be levied in the first instance against the Benos Sericum Ltd., and it was only upon failure to realise the decretal amount from Benos Sericum Ltd., that execution could be had against other judgment-debtors. The apparent view of the court below that because the Company had gone into liquidation it had to be assumed that execution could not be had against it or that the decretal amount could not be realised from it, is obviously incorrect. When a Company goes into liquidation the effect is not to bring about a dissolution of the company. As observed by Viscount Cave in Employers Liability Assurance Corporation v. Sedgwick Collims and Co., 1927 A. C. 95 "a company which has been dissolved no longer exists as a separate entity capable of holding property or of being sued in court; but a company in liquidation, though the administration of its affairs has passed to the liquidator retains its complete existence. If the liquidation should be annulled, the company will resume its powers". This is the exact position under the Indian Companies Act also and it is only after the final meeting under Section 509 of the Indian Companies Act that a company is deemed to be dissolved.;