JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. - The Appellants by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Berhampur in RFA No. 11 of 2011 (RFA No. 87/05-GDC). These Appellants being the Plaintiffs had filed the suit i.e. Title Suit No. 41 of 1996 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur. In the said suit, they had sought for a declaration that the seizure of the Industrial Unit not fit to have the run as made by the Respondent No.1 i.e. Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter, called as 'the OSFC') and its officials who are the other Respondents-Defendants is illegal with further prayer for direction to them not to dispose of the said unit in simultaneously holding that the action of the Respondent No.1- OSFC (Defendant No.1) in rescinding the contract is illegal. It has also been prayed to declare that the Respondent No.1 (OSFC) has no further legal claim against the Appellants (Plaintiffs). The Defendant No. 4 has been impleaded as such during pendency of the suit as the unit in question was purchased by him pursuant to the auction held by the Respondent No. 1 and its officials. The suit has been decreed and the following order has been passed:- 'It is hereby declared that the seizure of the suit unit and the inventory made by the defendant nos.1 to3 on 11-10-1995 is illegal. The auction sale of the suit unit in favour of the defendant no.4 is illegal and void in the eye of law. The conveyance deed bearing no.181 of 1997 executed in favour of defendant no.4 is also illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants no.1 to 3 have rescind the contract with the plaintiffs with regard to the loan advanced to the plaintiffs and the Corporation has no legal claim against the plaintiffs.' (Perhaps meaning thereby that the action of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in rescinding the contract with regard to the loan advanced to the Plaintiffs being illegal the Defendant No.1- OSFC has no legal claim against the Plaintiffs). 2. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) being aggrieved by the said judgment filed the Appeal under section 96 of the Code which came to be heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Berhampur. 2. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) being aggrieved by the said judgment filed the Appeal under section 96 of the Code which came to be heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Berhampur. The said Appeal has been allowed and the suit filed by the Appellants as the Plaintiffs has been dismissed which is now impugned in the present Appeal. It may be stated here that the Plaintiff No. 1 is a proprietorship which is represented by its proprietor and that proprietor has come to stand as Plaintiff No.2 3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court. 4. Plaintiffs' case:- The Plaintiff applied for loan from Defendant No.1 and having executed necessary documents availed certain amount out of the sanctioned loan for establishing the Saw Mill. The Plaintiff No.1 again wanted further loan from the Defendant No.1 and also executed other documents in that regard which was released on phase wise. The Plaintiff was asked to file required Forest Clearance Certificate to enable Defendant No. 1 to release further amount towards the loan for purchase of the machineries for running the Saw Mill. It is stated that the Forest Officials declined give the clearance unless the machineries are purchased. So the Plaintiffs requested to Defendant No. 1 to release the loan to purchase the machineries on priority basis. When the Defendant No. 1 stated that they would not go beyond the deed of hypothecation and as such release the loan and instead forest clearance, the Plaintiff thus could not avail the loan in full from the Defendant No.1. It is submitted that for the said action, the Plaintiff having not been able to get the loan in full suffered loss and remained in a fix. The Defendant No. 1 citing the default of the payment of loan proceeded in taking action under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (in short 'SFC Act'). It is stated that since the Defendant No. 1 had not complied the terms and conditions, the default on the part of the Plaintiffs took place and they had no role therein. Thus the action taken by the Defendant No. 1 under section 29 of the SFC Act are all questioned as illegal. 5. It is stated that since the Defendant No. 1 had not complied the terms and conditions, the default on the part of the Plaintiffs took place and they had no role therein. Thus the action taken by the Defendant No. 1 under section 29 of the SFC Act are all questioned as illegal. 5. The Defendants while denying the averments taken in the plaint, have said that the negligence was on the part of the Plaintiffs in not installing the machineries as they failed to discharge the obligations in obtaining the license before availing the loan for installation of the machineries. All such action under section 29 of the SFC Act are stated to have been rightly taken. It is their case that such action is not to be questioned in a suit before the Civil Court. They assert that in adherence to provision of section 29 of the SFC Act, the Defendant No. 1 being the statutory body had no other option but to proceed further in the matter of recovery of the outstanding dues in view of the default. 6. The Trial Court on the above rival case having framed seven issues has held the suit to be maintainable and the Plaintiffs to be having the cause of action to file the suit. Coming to the next two issues as to the legality of the seizure of suit unit and inventory made by the Defendant No. 1 in further proceeding to sell the same in auction, the answers have been given in favour of the Plaintiffs. Having recorded the answers as above, all such further actions taken pursuant to the above seizure of the unit have also been held to be illegal. Accordingly, the suit has been decreed followed by the order as aforesaid. 7. The First Appellate Court finding that the Plaintiff as a loanee has defaulted in paying the loan, the Defendant No. 1 has rightly proceeded with action under section 29 of the SFC Act has held the suit as laid for the reliefs claimed is in order to defeat the legal claim of the Defendant No. 1 and thus has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the Appellants (Plaintiffs) submits that the First Appellate Court has failed in its duty in not examining the answers recorded by the Trial Court on all the issues framed in the suit and has erred both on fact and law in setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by merely saying that such a suit for the reliefs claim is not maintainable. He therefore submits that the above stands as the substantial question of law for being answered. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondents (Defendants) submits that in view of the default on the part of the Plaintiffs-loanees, the Defendant No. 1 having exercised the power under the statute i.e. SFC Act in section 29 has taken the action and proceeded further for recovery the loan dues, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that such a suit to defeat the genuine claim of Defendant No. 1 is not entertainable. 10. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the courts below. 11. In order to address the rival submission, it would be profitable to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of 'The State Financial Corporation and another vs. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another'; AIR 2002 Supreme Court 834. Para 5 and 6 of the said judgment read as under:- '5. The object for which the Act was enacted needs to be noted. Central Industrial Financial Corporation was originally set up under the Industrial Financial Corporation Act, 1948 with a view to provide medium and long term credit to industrial undertakings which fall outside the normal activity of commercial banks. Several State Governments desired to set up in the States similar Corporations with a view to supplement the work of Industrial Financial Corporation. The intention was that the State Financial Corporations shall confine to the medium and small industrial units ad as far as possible to such cases as are outside the scope of the Industrial Financial Corporation. Since the incorporation, regulation and winding up such Corporation fall within the purview of Parliament by Entry No.43 of the Union List, request was made to the Government of India to enact necessary enabling legislation, and that is how the Act was enacted. 6. The Corporation as an instrumentality of the State deals with public money. Since the incorporation, regulation and winding up such Corporation fall within the purview of Parliament by Entry No.43 of the Union List, request was made to the Government of India to enact necessary enabling legislation, and that is how the Act was enacted. 6. The Corporation as an instrumentality of the State deals with public money. There can be no doubt that the approach has to be public oriented. It can operate effectively if there is regular realization of the instalments. While the Corporation is expected to act fairly in the matter of disbursement of the loans, there is corresponding duty cast upon the borrowers to repay the instalments in time, unless prevented by unsurmountable difficulties. Regular payment is the rule and non-payment due to extenuating circumstances is the exception. If the repayments are not received as per the scheduled time frame, it will disturb the equilibrium of the financial arrangements of the Corporations. They do not have at their disposal unlimited funds. They have to cater to the needs of the intended borrowers with the available finance. Non-payment of the instalment by a defaulter may stand on the way of a deserving borrower getting financial assistance'. It has been further said in para-16 that:- 'Section 29 gives a right to the Financial Corporation inter alia to sell the assets of the industrial concern and realize the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation. This right accrues when the industrial concern, which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under an agreement, make any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations as envisaged in section 29 of the Act. Section 29 (1) gives the Financial Corporation in the event of default the right to take over the management or possession or both and thereafter deal with the property'. 12. In the backdrop of above, factual settings of the case being examined, it is seen that the Defendant No. 1 sanctioned the loan in two terms in favour of the Plaintiffs. The First one is for Rs.57,800/- and the other one is for Rs. 39,800. It was so informed to the Plaintiffs under sanction order dated 4.2.1980 and 30.7.1980 respectively. The Plaintiffs entered into an agreement for the loan on various conditions. The First one is for Rs.57,800/- and the other one is for Rs. 39,800. It was so informed to the Plaintiffs under sanction order dated 4.2.1980 and 30.7.1980 respectively. The Plaintiffs entered into an agreement for the loan on various conditions. The Defendant No. 1 then paid a sum of Rs.34,299.28 paise towards civil construction for the unit. The Plaintiff states to have invested a sum of Rs.25,000/- in addition to the released loan amount for civil construction with a hope that the same would be sanctioned by the Defendant No.1. Subsequently, it is stated that the suit unit was ready for installation of the machineries for its run and for the purpose the Plaintiff submitted quotation of the machineries for their purchase. It is alleged that the machineries could not be installed because of the inaction of the Defendant No. 1 in not disbursing the further loan amount for the purpose and it unnecessarily insisted a license from the Forest Department. The Plaintiffs when approached the Forest Department, it was declined being not falling within criterias under the policy of grant of license. So it is said that it became impossible to Plaintiffs to get machineries without disbursement of the sanctioned loan and in this way long time have elapsed and the unit remained incomplete being not in a position to run. Such action of the Defendant No. 1 is said to be malafide to put the Plaintiff in loss. On the other hand, it is stated by the Defendant No. 1 that the Plaintiff was under obligation to obtain license before availing the loan as per the agreement with them and therefore, they having insisted upon said license as precondition for disbursement of the loan amount, they assert the action to be in no way faulty. They further state that in order to help the Plaintiffs to tide over the difficulties, they had requested the Divisional Forest Officer for granting the license to the Plaintiffs although strictly it was not within their domain as the Financier. So they say that when the license was not granted to the Plaintiffs owing to the non-suitability of location and on technical grounds, the Plaintiffs cannot be exonerated of the liability of repayment of the loan amount by them already under default. The Plaintiffs while availing the loan had executed all the documents with eyes wide open. So they say that when the license was not granted to the Plaintiffs owing to the non-suitability of location and on technical grounds, the Plaintiffs cannot be exonerated of the liability of repayment of the loan amount by them already under default. The Plaintiffs while availing the loan had executed all the documents with eyes wide open. The condition as to obtaining of Forest Clearance for installation of machineries being agreed upon by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants under no circumstances would be held negligent in not releasing the loan amount on that score in the absence of the clearance. 13. In the above facts and circumstances as obtained in evidence, this Court finds that the Trial Court was not right in holding the action of the Defendant No.1 taken under of the Unit section 29 of SFC Act as regards seizure and inventory thereof as also further putting the same to auction sale and all other consequential auction to be illegal and thereby in going to say that the Defendants have no claim whatsoever against the Plaintiffs as if the outstanding loan dues thereby stood written off or waived. In the wake of aforesaid, this Court is not in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appeal merits admission. 14. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.