1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1844/2006. (R.F.C. VS. GODARA CHEMICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 08.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. S.G. Ojha for the appellant. Mr. Manish Shishodia } Mr. Lalit Pareek } for the respondents. By this misc. appeal, a challenge is given to the order dated 09.08.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barmer accepting an application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 from disposing of the disputed industrial unit till decision of the original suit and also to maintain status quo regarding the unit concern. A further direction is given not to proceed with recovery of the over-due against the plaintiff till disposal of the original suit. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the industrial unit has already been sold to the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and even after disposal of that, the outstanding amount against the plaintiff has not been satisfied. I have examined the order impugned. 2 It is not in dispute that the industrial unit has already been sold to defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and even thereafter the outstanding amount has not been satisfied. The trial court while directing to maintain status quo with regard to disposal or transfer of the industrial unit in question, also stayed the recovery proceedings. The recovery of the amount is required to be made by the appellant Rajasthan Financial Corporation against the loan advanced by it. It is not in dispute that the loan was advanced by the Corporation to the plaintiff and that has not been satisfied so far. The trial court has already protected rights of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants from transferring the property to any one else till disposal of the suit. It is only in exceptional circumstances, a financial institution may be stopped from realizing its dues, otherwise in normal course the court may impose reasonable conditions to protect rights of the party concern from whom recovery of money is to be made. The stay of recovery proceedings in the instant matter is absolutely unwarranted. A sum of Rs.18,70,000/- was advanced to the plaintiff by the present appellant and out of that, as per the appellants a sum of Rs.16,84,950/- is still due. It is true that the amount sought to be paid is disputed by the plaintiff but total liability is not denied. 3 In view of it, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the order dated 19.08.2005 in the terms that the restrainment relating to recovery proceedings is set aside and it is open for the defendant – appellant to effect recovery from the plaintiffs- respondents. Before parting it, it is also to note that the original suit is pending since 2002 and looking to its nature, it is desirable to direct the trial court to expedite the proceedings and to decide the same expeditiously as far as possible within a period of three months from today. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/