J UDGMENT : ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J. 1. Since both these 2nd Appeals have arisen out of an analogous Judgment and Decree passed in R.F.A. No.7/2019 and R.F.A. No.9/2019 in respect of the Judgment and Decree passed in a suit and its counter claim vide C.S. No.68/2014, then, both these 2 nd Appeals are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common Judgment. 2. The appellant-industry in both these 2nd Appeals was the sole plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.68/2014 and appellant before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1 st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.9/2019 and respondent No.1 in R.F.A. No.7/2019. The respondents in these 2 nd Appeals were the defendants before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.68/2014 and respondents before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1 st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.9/2019. The predecessor of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in R.F.A. No.7/2019 was the defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.68/2014 and appellant in the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.7/2019. 3. The suit of the plaintiff-industry vide C.S. No.68/2014 was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff being an industry used to manufacture the cables and electrical conductors in the banner of Gupta Power. The plaintiff-industry had purchased the suit properties through thirteen numbers of sale deeds from several persons and formed the said purchased suit properties into a compact area and raised a laterite stone boundary wall surrounding the same and extended its factory/industry covering the suit properties. As such, the suit properties being the properties of the plaintiff-industry, the same are under the factory area of the plaintiff-industry. The plaintiff-industry is in possession over the suit properties. As such, the suit properties being the properties of the plaintiff-industry, the same are under the factory area of the plaintiff-industry. The plaintiff-industry is in possession over the suit properties. When the defendant No.1 claimed her title over the suit properties on the basis of a void sale deed, then, the plaintiff-industry approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.68/2014 against the defendant No.1 arraying her vendors as defendant Nos.2 to 8 praying for declaration of its right, title and interest over the suit properties and to confirm its possession thereon and to declare the sale deed bearing No.6388 dated 20.12.2010 executed by the defendant Nos.2 to 8 in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties as void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff-industry and to injunct the defendants permanently from interefering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-industry in the suit properties along with other reliefs, to which, the plaintiff-industry is entitled for. 4. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.68/2014, the defendants filed their written statements challenging the suit of the plaintiff-industry. When the defendant No.1 filed her written statement independently, the defendant Nos.2 to 8 filed their written statement jointly. In the written statement of the defendant No.1, she (defendant No.1) stated that, the suit properties were recorded originally n the name of Md. Akbar. The said Md. Akbar died leaving behind his son Md. Anwar. Md. Anwar had sold the suit properties to Prafulla Kumar Das and Kamini Kumari Das through R.S.D. Nos.642 & 641 dated 26.02.1980. After selling the suit properties to Prafulla Kumar Das and Kamini Kumari Das, neither Md. Akbar nor his son Md. Anwar had any interest in the suit properties. As the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties in favour of Prafulla Kumar Das and Kamini Kumari Das were prior to the sale deed in respect of the same suit properties in favour of the plaintiff-industry, then, the claim of the plaintiff-industry in respect of the suit properties is untenable under law, because, the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff-industry in respect of the suit properties is void as its vendor had no alienable right in the same to transfer the said suit properties to the plaintiff-industry. Therefore, the plaintiff-industry has no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. Therefore, the plaintiff-industry has no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. For which, the suit of the plaintiff-industry is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.1 also filed a counter claim with her written statement against the plaintiff-industry praying for injuncting the plaintiff-industry permanently from dealing with the suit properties in any manner and to recover the possession of the suit properties from the plaintiff-industry, if she (defendant No.1) is found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiff-industry. 5. The defendant Nos.2 to 8 challenged the maintainability of the suit of the plaintiff-industry taking their stands in their joint written statement that, they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. According to them (defendant Nos.2 to 8), the suit properties bearing Khata No.526/80, Plot No.2309/240 Ac.1.194 ½ decimals originally belonged to Md. Akbar. Md. Akbar died leaving behind his son Md. Anwar. After the death of Md. Akbar, Md. Anwar was the owner of the suit properties. Md. Anwar alienated the same on the basis of the two registered sale deeds dated 26.02.1980 in favour of Prafulla Kumar Das and Kamini Kumari Das, then, no right was with Md. Anwar for alienation. Their further case was that, their father i.e. Prafulla Kumar Das and mother Kamini Kumari Das died on 12.02.1996 and 26.11.2006 respectively. For which, the decree passed in the suit vide T.S. No.49/1997 against their father, who had expired prior to the initiation of the suit vide T.S. No.49/1997 is void and illegal and the same is a nullity which is not binding upon them. Because, the decree in the suit vide T.S. No.49/1997 was passed against the dead man. It is a fact that, the defendant No.2 has sold the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.1 through R.S.D. dated 20.12.2010 and had delivered possession thereof. For which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed against them (defendant Nos.2 to 8). 6. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 14 numbers of issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.68 of 2014 and the said issues are: ISSUES 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law? 2. Whether there is any cause of action to institute this suit? 3. Whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law? 2. Whether there is any cause of action to institute this suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land on being purchased the same through different RSDs executed by 13 purchasers in his name, who have purchased the same from Md. Anwar, the son and successor of the original owner of the suit land namely, Md. Akbar? 4. Whether the sale deed bearing No.6388/dtd 20.12.2010 executed by the successors of Prafulla Kumar Das and Kamini Kumari Das in favour of the defendant No.1 is void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff? 5. Whether the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Khordha in Mutation Appeal No.17/2013 is bad, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff? 6. Whether the defendant No.1, her agents, servants be permanently injuncted from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land? 7. Whether the alternative the plaintiff has right, title, interest over the suit properties by virtue of adverse possession? 8. What other relief(s), if any, the plaintiff is entitled to? ISSUES RELATING TO THE COUNTER CLAIM 9. Whether the counter claim is maintainable in the eye of law? 10. Whether there is any cause of action to file this counter claim? 11. Whether the counter claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 12. Whether the plaintiff be permanently injuncted in dealing with the suit land in any manner? 13. Whether an order of recovery of possession of the suit land be passed in favour of the defendant No.1? 14. What other relief(s), if any, the defendant is entitled to? 7. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s) sought for by the plaintiff against the defendants, the plaintiff-industry examined 4 witnesses from its side as PWs 1 to 4 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 36. On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiff, the defendants examined 3 numbers of witnesses on their behalf including the defendant No.1 as D.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.A to N. 8. On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiff, the defendants examined 3 numbers of witnesses on their behalf including the defendant No.1 as D.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.A to N. 8. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned Trial Court answered issue Nos.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 & 8 against the plaintiff-industry and answered issue Nos.9,10,11,12,13 & 14 against the defendant No.1 and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in the issues, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-industry on contest against the defendants and also dismissed the counter claim of the defendant No.1 against the plaintiff-industry as per its Judgment and Decree dated 31.01.2019 and 15.02.2019 respectively assigning the reasons that, “the defendant Nos.2 to 8 being the successors of Prafulla Kumar Das and Kamini Kumari Das, they have alienated the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.1 through RSD No.6338 dated 20.12.2010 and the said sale deed is valid and binding upon the parties including the plaintiff- industry, for which, the plaintiff-industry has no right, title and interest in the suit properties and the order, which has been passed by the Sub-Collector, Khurdha in Mutation Appeal No.17/2013 in favour of the defendant No.1 is not illegal. The counter claim of the defendant No.1 is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the defendant No.1 has alleged allegations against the Government i.e. IDCO in the counter claim and as the defendant No.1 has failed to establish her possession over the suit properties, for which, she (defendant No.1) is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the counter claim.” 9. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-industry vide C.S. No.68 of 2014 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff-industry challenged the same preferring the 1 st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.9/2019 being the appellant against the defendants arraying them (defendants) as respondents. Likewise, on being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the counter claim of the defendant No.1, she (defendant No.1) challenged the same preferring the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.7/2019 being the appellant against the plaintiff-industry arraying it as respondent No.1 and also arraying other defendants as proforma defendants. Likewise, on being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the counter claim of the defendant No.1, she (defendant No.1) challenged the same preferring the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.7/2019 being the appellant against the plaintiff-industry arraying it as respondent No.1 and also arraying other defendants as proforma defendants. After hearing from both sides, the learned First Appellate Court passed an analogous Judgment and Decree in both the First Appeals in R.F.A. No.9/2019 and R.F.A. No.7/2019 as per its Judgment & Decree dated 20.05.2023 and 27.06.2023 respectively and allowed the 1 st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.7/2019 of the defendant No.1 but, dismissed to the 1 st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.9/2019 of the plaintiff-industry and confirmed the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in its Judgment & Decree against the plaintiff-industry, but set aside to the Judgment and Decree passed in respect of the counter claim of the defendant No.1 and directed the plaintiff- industry to deliver the vacant possession of the suit properties to the successors of the defendant No.1, as by that time, the defendant No.1 had expired and her LRs were substituted in her place assigning the reasons that, “the sale deed executed by the defendant Nos.2 to 8 in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties is valid and proper. For which, the defendant No.1 has right, title and interest in the suit properties, but the plaintiff-industry has no interest in the suit properties.” 10. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 20.05.2023 and 27.06.2023 respectively passed by the learned First Appellate Court in R.F.A. Nos.7/2019 and 9/2019 in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-industry vide C.S. No.68/2014 and in decreeing the counter claim of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff-industry challenged the same by preferring two separate 2nd Appeals i.e. R.S.A. No.273 of 2023 against the Judgment and Decree passed in R.F.A. No.9/2019 and R.S.A. No.278/2023 against the Judgment & Decree passed in R.F.A. No.7/2019 being the appellant in both the appeals against the defendants arraying them (defendants) as respondents. 11. Both the 2nd Appeals were admitted on formulation of the following common substantial questions of law i.e. (i) Whether both the courts below were correct in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff without considering the competency of its vendor’s vendor (Md. 11. Both the 2nd Appeals were admitted on formulation of the following common substantial questions of law i.e. (i) Whether both the courts below were correct in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff without considering the competency of its vendor’s vendor (Md. Anwar) to alienate the suit property as per the provisions of Mohammedan Law? (ii.) Whether the learned courts below were correct in admitting secondary evidence, when as per section 63 of the Evidence Act, the admissibility is not proved through its original documents showing its existence?” 12. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff-industry), learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (defendant No.1) and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 8 (defendant Nos.2 to 8) in both the 2nd Appeals. 13. As per the pleadings of the appellant (plaintiff-industry), the suit properties are the properties of the plaintiff-industry and the same are the parts of the properties of the plaintiff-industry. The learned counsels of both the sides including the learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff-industry) fairly submitted during hearing of these appeals that, a proceeding under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 has already been admitted on the application filed by the Canara Bank Limited and Others (Financial Creditors) vide Company Petition (IB) No.37/KB/2024 against the plaintiff- industry and as such, the said proceeding under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 vide Company Petition (IB) No.37/KB/2024 is subjudice/pending against the plaintiff-industry. Therefore, in view of the provisions of law envisaged in Section 14(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, both these 2 nd Appeals vide R.S.A. Nos.273 & 278 of 2023 are not to be continued, as moratorium has come into effect. Because, due to the admission of the proceeding under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 vide Company Petition (IB) No.37/KB/2024, these two 2nd Appeals have become moratorium as per law. They also submitted not to prosecute these 2 nd Appeals further due to the commencement of moratorium after the admission of the Company Petition (IB) No.37/KB/2024 against the plaintiff-industry. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision: In a case between Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision: In a case between Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs. Hotel Gaudavan Private Limited & Others reported in 2020 (II) CLR (SC) 315 that, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016—Section 14— Commencement of moratorium after admission of petition under Code—Effect of—Held, once moratorium comes into effect, Section 14(1)(a) expressly stops institution or continuation of pending proceedings against corporate debtors. 14. When it is forthcoming from the above submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides that, both these 2 nd Appeals are under the effect of moratorium after the admission of the Company Petition (IB) No.37/KB/2024 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 against the plaintiff-industry at the instance of the Canara Bank Limited and other Financial Creditors and when the plaintiff industry is a corporate debtor, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court, both these 2 nd Appeals cannot continue further. When it is held that, both the 2nd Appeals cannot continue further due to commencement of moratorium, then, both these 2nd Appeals are liable to be dismissed as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. 15. Therefore, both the 2 nd Appeals filed by the appellant (plaintiff-industry) are dismissed.