JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. The sole question that, inter alia, arises for consideration is as to whether further proceeding of M.S. No.35 of 1999 of the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh shall remain suspended till the scheme as directed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction is framed ? 2. Opposite party as plaintiff instituted the suit for realisation of money for non-payment of cost of the materials supplied by it to the defendant-petitioner. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. While the matter stood thus, the defendant filed an application under Section 151 CPC to stay further proceeding of the suit in view of the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as “the BIFR”) and the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as “the AAIFR”). It is stated that the defendant-company filed a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the SICA”) before the BIFR, which was registered as Case No.114/2004. By order dated 11.1.2007, the BIFR declared the defendant-company as sick industrial company and appointed IDBI as operating agency with certain directions for revival of the company. Being aggrieved by the direction made in para 15(v) by which the BIFR has directed the operating agency to issue advertisement for change of management under Section 18 of SICA for revival of the company, defendant-company preferred appeal before the AAIFR, which was registered as Appeal No.88 of 2007. The AAIFR by order dated 8.1.2008 set aside the said portion of the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the BIFR and directed the ARCIL to hold a joint meeting with all secured creditors within eight weeks from the date of the order after circulating fully tied up rehabilitation scheme to be submitted by the company with ARCIL within four weeks. Thereafter, the company was directed to file fully tied up rehabilitation scheme with BIFR within twelve weeks from the date of the order. It is further stated that the company has submitted the rehabilitation scheme to the ARCIL and the ARCIL is on the verge of submitting its report. The plaintiff filed an objection to the same. Thereafter, the company was directed to file fully tied up rehabilitation scheme with BIFR within twelve weeks from the date of the order. It is further stated that the company has submitted the rehabilitation scheme to the ARCIL and the ARCIL is on the verge of submitting its report. The plaintiff filed an objection to the same. It is apt to state here that SASF and ARCIL held more than 82% of the company’s secured debts. By order dated 22.7.2008, learned trial court rejected the petition. With this factual scenario, the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to lacinate the said order. 3. Heard Mr. P.K. Sahu on behalf of Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P.Sarangi, learned counsel for the opposite party. 4. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the matter is pending before the BIFR, the further proceeding of the suit shall remain suspended under Section 22 of the SICA. In view of the same, the impugned order of the learned trial court is bad in law. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the opposite party, submitted that by order dated 8.1.2008, the AAIFR in Appeal No.88 of 2007 set aside a portion of the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the BIFR and directed the ARCIL to hold a joint meeting with all the secured creditors within eight weeks from the date of the order after circulating fully tied up rehabilitation scheme to be submitted by the company with ARCIL within four weeks. The company was directed to file fully tied up rehabilitation scheme with BIFR within twelve weeks from the date of the order. It is not known whether the company has filed fully tied up rehabilitation scheme with BIFR. Furthermore, the petition lacks the details. In view of the same, learned trial court is justified in rejecting the application. He cited the decision of the apex Court in the case of Raheja Universal Limited v. NRC Limited and others, (2012) 4 SCC 148 . 6. Section 22(1) of the SICA, which is the hub of the issue, is quoted hereunder: “22. In view of the same, learned trial court is justified in rejecting the application. He cited the decision of the apex Court in the case of Raheja Universal Limited v. NRC Limited and others, (2012) 4 SCC 148 . 6. Section 22(1) of the SICA, which is the hub of the issue, is quoted hereunder: “22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.- (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof [and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company] shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority.” 7. Interpreting Section 22 of SICA, the apex Court in M/s. Madras Petrochem Ltd. and another v. BIFR and others, AIR 2016 SC 898 in paragraph-48 held thus: “…..It is clear, therefore, that the expression “where a reference is pending” would necessarily include the inquiry stage before the Board under Section 16 of the Act. If this be the case, then the reference can be said to be pending not only when an inquiry is instituted, but also after preparation and sanction of a scheme right till the stage the scheme has worked out successfully or till the BIFR gives its opinion to wind up the company.” 8. On the anvil of the decision cited supra, the case of the petitioner may be examined. The defendant-company filed a reference under Section 15(1) of the SICA before BIFR basing on the audited balance sheet dated 30.11.2003. On the anvil of the decision cited supra, the case of the petitioner may be examined. The defendant-company filed a reference under Section 15(1) of the SICA before BIFR basing on the audited balance sheet dated 30.11.2003. By order dated 11.1.2007, the BIFR declared the defendant-company as sick industrial company in terms of Section 3(1)(o) of SICA and appointed IDBI as operating agency to formulate rehabilitation scheme. Aggrieved by the directions contained in para 15(v), by which the BIFR has directed the operating agency to issue advertisement for change of management under Section 18 of SICA for revival of the company, the defendant-company filed an appeal being Appeal No.88 of 2007 before the AAIFR. The AAIFR set aside the said paragraph on 8.1.2008 and directed the ARCIL to hold a joint meeting with all the secured creditors within eight weeks from the date of the order after circulating fully tied up rehabilitation scheme to be submitted by the company with ARCIL within four weeks. The defendant-company was directed to file fully tied up rehabilitation scheme with BIFR within twelve weeks from the date of the order. 9. There is no dispute that the rehabilitation scheme of the defendant-company is either under preparation or consideration. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the case of M/s. Madras Petrochem Ltd. that the reference can be said to be pending not only when an inquiry is instituted, but also after preparation and sanction of a scheme right till the stage the scheme has worked out successfully or till the BIFR gives its opinion to wind up the company, a conclusion is irresistible that the reference is still pending before the BIFR. That being the position, the suit cannot be proceeded against the defendant-company except with the consent of the BIFR. 10. In Raheja Universal Limited (supra), the question arose the scope and ambit of Section 22 of the SICA and its overriding application over the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with particular reference to Section 53-A and Section 54 of the latter Act. The judgment was delivered in different context. The same has no direct bearing to the facts of the present case. 11. On taking a holistic view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned trial court is perfunctory and flawed. The judgment was delivered in different context. The same has no direct bearing to the facts of the present case. 11. On taking a holistic view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned trial court is perfunctory and flawed. If the order dated 22.7.2008 is allowed to stand, the same will cause miscarriage of justice. In view of the same, the order dated 22.7.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh in M.S. No.35 of 1999 is quashed. It is open to the plaintiff to approach the BIFR and take consent to proceed with the suit. The petition is allowed. No costs.