THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4076 of 2006 ORDER: Heard both sides. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner- defendant, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 12.07.2006, passed in I.A.No.233 of 2006 (old I.A.No.2247 of 2005) in O.S.No.167 of 2004 on the file of X Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The only question which arises for consideration in this Revision, after hearing both sides, is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, the amounts due by the petitioner towards telephone bills to the respondent can be termed as liability or debt to fall within the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). The Court below has rejected the application stating that the telephone bills or the amounts therein will not come within its purview and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any protection under Section 22 of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he is not aware of the stage of proceedings pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short ‘BIFR’). Be that as it may, it is needless to say that as long as the proceedings are pending before the BIFR, necessarily any matter before the civil Court has to be stayed. This Court also granted stay on 25.08.2006, which was extended from time to time, pending this Revision and no attempt has been made on behalf of the respondent either to get the same vacated or to inform this Court as to the stage of the proceedings before the BIFR. Having regard to the very liability, irrespective of its nature, which takes in every liability including that of telephone bills, there is absolutely no exception whatsoever in this regard. In view of the same, the Court below was not right in rejecting the said application. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under Revision is set aside. It is made clear that stay granted by this Court earlier shall operate till the disposal or subject to the disposal of the proceedings before the BIFR. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO 1st July 2010 dr