RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit before the learned Single Judge, against the order dated 12th December, 2008 staying further proceedings in the suit under Section 22 of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). The suit was instituted under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of money. The respondent/ defendant applied for leave to defend. Arguments on the application for leave to defend were addressed by the counsel for the parties and order thereon reserved. It was at this stage, that the respondent/defendant made a reference to the BIFR and the reference of the respondent/defendant was registered and the bar of Section 22 of the SICA invoked. The only contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff before the learned Single Judge and before us is that since nothing remained to be “proceeded with” in the suit, Section 22 did not apply and the learned Single Judge ought to have pronounced the orders / judgment on the application of the respondent/defendant for leave to defend. The contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that there is no hiatus between the reser