THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.755 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is a firm, which instituted O.A.No.374 of 1997 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,73,184-40 ps from the respondent- Company allegedly the cost of cotton supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant/respondent. The respondent filed I.A.No.562 of 1999 for stay of the suit. The reason is that they sought a reference before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). Having regard to Section 22 of the said Act, the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, where the suit is pending, stayed the suit. Subsequently, the defendant filed I.A.No.718 of 2006 to dismiss the suit in view of the scheme framed by BIFR. The same was partly allowed directing the defendant to make payment of 20% of the suit claim within thirty (30) days as per the scheme framed by the BIFR. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed CRP.No.4814 of 2006, which was dismissed on 13.07.2007 confirming the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.718 of 2006 and stay granted in I.A.No.562 of 1999 stood vacated. The petitioner herein filed an affidavit before the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the suit. They contended that the scheme for revival has already been approved by the BIFR; the defendant failed to comply with the orders made therein and therefore the suit cannot remain stayed. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application observing that the petitioner did not produce any proof of completion of proceeding before BIFR. Counsel for the petitioner submits that defendant failed to deposit 20% of the suit claim within time and also pay the balance amount within eight (8) months as directed by BIFR, therefore, the lower Court may proceed with the suit. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent would contend that as directed by the Court below in I.A.No.718 of 2006, the amount equivalent to 20% of the principal is already deposited which was already withdrawn by the plaintiff and therefore, in view of the order passed in I.A.No.562 of 1999, the stay was in operation. There is no dispute that the defendant company was referred to BIFR. It is not disputed that the scheme was framed on 29.09.2004 and the scheme framed is being implemented by the BIFR. If there is lapse on the part of the defendant in implementing the same, it is always open to the plaintiff or any other creditor to approach BIFR and seek any orders including an order for extension of the implementation period. When the implementation of the scheme is pending, the suit cannot be proceeded with. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 27th September 2011 RRB