T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant prima facie appears to be playing with the court. The defendant questions the order passed by the trial court regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground that it is covered under Section 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. ( 2 ) THE suit was filed for money for goods supplied and delivered for Rs. 4,77,735. 96. As soon as the suit is filed, an application is filed to try issue No. 4 on the question of maintainability of the suit. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable. The trial court, however, held that the suit is maintainable and answering issue No. 4 in the negative directed the other issues to be tried. It is against that order that the present revision is filed by the defendant. ( 3 ) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is for recovery of money, consequently the view taken by the court that section 22 (1) is not applicable is not correct. On the other hand, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that though from the records it is seen that in 1990 a case for reconstruction was filed, the order was passed in 1993. In the meantime, the defendant indulged in purchasing the goods on credit. Now taking advantage of the order, they want to cheat the plaintiff. It is also submitted that all the transactions took place in 1991 one year after the said application was filed and consequently this provision will not have application at all. Heard the respective counsel. ( 4 ) I find that the attitude of the defendant is not appreciable. It appears that an application for treating the defendant as a sick industry was filed in case No. 140/90 before the Board for industrial and Financial Reconstruction and orders were passed on June 8, 1993. The impugned application is filed for treating the industry as a sick unit, on the ground that the industry cannot run by itself at all. If prior to the application it had transactions with third parties, they must respect the same and they cannot take advantage of the orders that may be passed later. There is no clarity as to what has happened to the transactions entered into after 1990 and before 1993. If prior to the application it had transactions with third parties, they must respect the same and they cannot take advantage of the orders that may be passed later. There is no clarity as to what has happened to the transactions entered into after 1990 and before 1993. If such state of affairs is to be continued, then every unit will apply for such declaration, go on with purchase of goods in the market and later tell the third party that because of the orders that were passed later they cannot get money at all. This is not what the Sick Industrial Undertaking Act says. The attitude of the company is deplorable and having availed of the benefit of the goods after they moved the Board it is not fair on their part to say that they will not pay money actually for the goods received by them subsequent to their approaching the Board. ( 5 ) I find no merit in the contention and in my opinion, the suit is maintainable. Because of the position explained supra, the CRP is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000.