1. Petitioner being the guarantor for a loan, his property was mortgaged to the creditor bank. That item, which is A schedule to the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, for short, the "RDB Act", is sold in enforcement of that certificate. He challenges that sale contending that the final order in the original application was issued by the Tribunal on 27.2.2004 and a period of three years and seven months from the end of the financial year in which that order was issued, had elapsed before the sale was held on 21.11.2007 and therefore, the said sale is void being violative of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short, the "IT Act". The argument on his behalf is that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule stipulates an outer time limit of three years, for the sale, from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand became final in terms of the provisions of Chapter XX of the IT Act or the attachment has become conclusive under the provisions of Section 245-I of the IT Act.

2. It is argued on behalf of the creditor bank that the provisions of the Second Schedule to the IT Act would apply only to the extent that they could be applied in terms of Section 29 of the RDB Act and that the interpretation and construction of the aforesaid statutes, as sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner, is unsustainable.

3. Petitioner earlier obtained Ext.P4 judgment which refers to a writ petition filed before that by his son-in-law, the co-obligant.

4. The legislative command in Section 19(22) of the RDB Act is that on the Tribunal passing the final order under sub-section 20 of Section 19, the Presiding Officer shall issue a certificate under his signature to the Recovery Officer, for recovery of the amount of debt specified in the certificate on the basis of the order of the Tribunal. The proceedings before the Recovery Officer would be generated by the communication of the recovery certificate by the Tribunal to the Recovery Officer. This is the operational modality provided for, by Sections 19(22), 25, 28 and 29. No independent application for enforcing the recovery certificate is provided for, or contemplated. Unlike the execution petitions provided for by the Rules in Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no need for an application for "execution" or enforcement of a recovery certificate under the RDB Act. A further legislative clue is also available in this regard. Section 24 of the RDB Act provides that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a Tribunal. That the legislature prescribed period of limitation only for an application to the Tribunal and the absence of any provision requiring an application to the Recovery Officer seeking enforcement of the certificate, unequivocally show that the enforcement is merely part of the whole proceedings initiated as per the application to the Tribunal.

5. The Presiding Officers and the Recovery Officers of the Tribunal are exercising quasi judicial functions enforcing recovery by a mode prescribed by the legislation. By virtue of Section 18, there is a clear ouster of jurisdiction of ordinary courts in relation to matters specified in Section 17 of the RDB Act. By such ouster of the jurisdiction, the necessary inference is that the recovery through the machinery under the RDB Act is the mandated substitute. No creditor who comes to a Court or Tribunal seeking relief would stand satiated with a paper certification that he has successfully established his claim. He has to have the relief; the fruit, meaning thereby, the money for which he has sued. If the creditor bank has applied to the Tribunal for relief within the period of limitation in terms of the Limitation Act read with Section 24 of the RDB Act, it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal, including th