Review by non-party aggrieved person is maintainable, but creditor status for company notice must be proved before reopening capital reduction orders.

Order 47 Rule 1 uses the broader expression "person aggrieved", so a non-party may seek review if the application is within limitation and satisfies the restricted grounds for review. In company proceedings, the court may apply the Code of Civil Procedure where the company rules are silent. The article also states that an asserted claim for mesne profits is only unliquidated damages until crystallised by decree, and therefore does not by itself establish creditor status entitled to notice in a reduction of share capital proceeding. On the facts discussed, the alleged creditor status was not proved and the earlier order was not reopened.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a review under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was maintainable at the instance of a person aggrieved who was not a party to the original proceedings. (ii) Whether the applicant had established that it was a creditor entitled to notice in the company proceedings, so as to justify review of the order confirming reduction of share capital.

Issue (i): Whether a review under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was maintainable at the instance of a person aggrieved who was not a party to the original proceedings.

Analysis: The expression "person aggrieved" in Order 47 Rule 1 is wider than the expression "party" used in Order 47 Rule 2. A company court, while exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act, functions as a civil court and may apply the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure where the company rules are silent. The governing principle is that a review is available to an aggrieved person, subject to the restricted grounds under Order 47 and compliance with limitation.

Conclusion: Yes. A review petition was maintainable at the instance of a person aggrieved, even if that person was not originally a party, provided the application was within limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant had established that it was a creditor entitled to notice in the company proceedings, so as to justify review of the order confirming reduction of share capital.

Analysis: The asserted claim for mesne profits was treated as a claim for damages for occupation after termination of tenancy, and such damages do not become a debt until adjudicated by decree. The material before the Court did not show that, on the date of the company petition, the company was indebted to the applicant in a manner attracting notice. The alleged municipal tax liability was also unsupported by material showing when the demand arose or became payable. The record further showed that notice had been dispensed with after publication and absence of objections, so no ground was made out for reopening the earlier order.

Conclusion: No. The applicant had not shown itself to be a creditor entitled to notice, and the earlier order did not warrant review.

Final Conclusion: The review application failed on merits notwithstanding the maintainability principle, and the earlier order confirming reduction of share capital was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: The phrase "person aggrieved" in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is broader than "party", so a non-party aggrieved person may seek review within limitation; however, a claim for mesne profits remains unliquidated damages until crystallised by decree and does not by itself establish creditor status for notice in company proceedings.

---