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 reserving and pronouncing of the judgment and the delay in pronouncing the judgment after hearing arguments is owing to the own reasons of the Court and once the arguments have been heard, the pronouncement of the judgment could not be stayed under Section 22 (supra). The judgment of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar AIR 1964 SC 993 forms the backbone of the contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The learned Single Judge however held that the position under Section 22 of the SICA was different from the position before the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh’s case (supra). It was held that Section 22 read with Section 32 of SICA mandates that SICA would prevail over other laws; that exceptions are provided but CPC is not an exception to the said general rule. It was further held that registration of the reference under Section 15/16 of the SICA results in denudation of courts jurisdiction at least till such time the concerned party/plaintiff or someone else seeks approval under Section 22.

3. The judgment in Arjun Singh’s case (supra) was concerned with Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC which permits a defendant to apply for having an order proceeding ex parte against him set aside if the Court has “adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte” and the defendant “at or before such hearing” appears and assigns good cause for previous non appearance. It was in that context held, that if the hearing is completed and/or if adjournment is not for hearing and the Court has only adjourned the matter for pronouncing the order/judgment that the defendant is not entitled to apply under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC. However, Section 22 of SICA does not use the expression „hearing?. It provides that “no suit for recovery of money …… shall lie or be proceeded with further ……..” Thus, the bar is to the very institution of the suit, if the suit had not been instituted prior to the applicability of Section 22 and if the suit has already been instituted before Section 22 comes into play, the bar is to the suit being proceeded with further. Put in other words, whether it can be said that nothing remains to be proceeded with further after arguments have been heard and order/judgment reserved.

4. The counsel for the appellant / plaintiff would contend so. He has in this regard relied upon:- (i) Pujya Sindhi Panchayat v. Prof. C.L. Mishra AIR 2002 Rajasthan 274 (DB) where an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC moved after the judgment was reserved was held to be not maintainable for the reason that when the hearing is completed the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that order 20 Rule 1 permits judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is complete