MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31st July, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has directed that the suit of the plaintiff as against the defendant No. 1 would stand decreed in terms of the order passed on 31st July, 2007. An application was also filed by the defendants No. 2 and 3 in the said suit under Section 22 and 22a of the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 praying for suspension of proceedings in the aforesaid suit. In view of the averments made that defendants No. 2 and 3 are sick companies, an order to that effect was passed staying the proceedings against defendants No. 2 and 3. No decree has been passed against defendants No. 2 and 3. ( 2 ) NOW, an appeal is filed by the appellants No. 1 and 2, who are defendants No. 3 and 2 in the suit. It is admitted in the grounds of appeal and before us now that appellant No. 2 is not a sick company. A specific averment to that effect is made in the memorandum of appeal in paragraph 15. It is stated therein that due to a genuine and bona fide mistake in the application dated 31. 5. 2007, at some places it was mentioned that the appellant No. 2 is a sick company, which is not true. Therefore, a wrong statement was made and an application with incorrect averments was filed on the basis of which the impugned order came to be passed on 31st July, 2007. ( 3 ) BE that as it may, the contention that no decree should have been passed against the defendant No. 1 cannot be entertained as the said defendant No. 1, who is affected by the said decree, has not filed any appeal before us. ( 4 ) SO far as the issue with regard to invocation of bank guarantee by the defendant No. 1 is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the same is not subject matter of the suit and, therefore, the same has no relevance in respect of the present appeal as well. ( 5 ) WE find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.