Judgment , J. 1. The plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 24.12.2004 and on 26.04.2005 by the learned first Appellate Court on an application for grant of ad interim injunction. 2. The challenge in the suit is to the notice dated 9.4.2003 whereby a sum of Rs.1,38,74,829/- was found due from the petitioner after adjusting the amount paid by the petitioner in terms of reschedulement dated 30.5.2001. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is making regular payment in terms of reschedulement communicated to the petitioner on 30.5.2001 and, therefore, the demand raised on 9.4.2003 is not legal. It is further argued that the petitioner shall have no objection if possession of all collateral securities are taken for satisfaction of all the dues of the respondent-Corporation. 4. Both the Courts below have declined ad interim injunction sought by the petitioner as it has been found that the petitioner has failed to make the payment as per loan amount rescheduled on 30.5.2001. The learned first Appellate Court has, in fact, recorded the statement of the officials of the respondent-Corporation to return a finding that a sum of Rs.18,34,000/- were due to the plaintiff even in terms of rescheduled loan amount. 5. The issue between the parties arise out of contractual obligation. It is for the petitioner to settle the accounts of the respondent-Corporation either in terms of the amount already rescheduled or otherwise. 6. In view thereof, I do not find that there is any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order declining ad interim injunction. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed.