1. The petitioner herein, was an applicant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT'), in S.A. No.11/2016 that was preferred impugning a notice received from an Advocate Commissioner, informing the petitioner that physical possession of his property would be taken on a date that was specified in the notice. The S.A. was considered by the DRT, along with a number of similar S.A’s that were filed challenging the action of the secured creditor in approaching the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'), and the consequential orders passed by the Magistrate, and notices issued by Advocate Commissioners. By Ext.P6 common order dated 25.05.2017, the DRT found that the S.A’s were not maintainable under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, since, according to the DRT, a notice of dispossession, issued by an officer of the court executing the order of a Magistrate, cannot be construed as a “measure” under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It is the correctness of this view that is questioned in this O.P (