By the Court.—Heard Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 i.e. the bank and perused the record.

2. This special appeal has been filed challenging the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1498 of 2013 on 21.1.2013 as well as judgment dated 21.2.2013 passed in Review Application No. 382 of 2013.

3. Relevant facts of the case in nut-shell are summarised below:

The respondent-bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 3.7.2012 which was modified by notice dated 9.7.2012. Against these notices,objections were filed by the appellant on 14.8.2012 and supplementary objections were also filed by the appellant on 23.8.2012. Objections raised by the appellant were rejected by order/letter dated 5.9.2012.

4. At the stage,when the objections were rejected, the appellant feeling aggrieved approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 51838 of 2012 which was dismissed by order dated 5.10.2012 on the ground of alternative remedy. The relevant part of the order dated 5.10.2012 is reproduced below:

“Issues which are sought to be raised in the writ petition require adjudication of facts determining the liability of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. We are of the view that it is not the state for this Court to enter into or adjudicate the issues raised in the writ petition. As and when any action is taken by the bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2002, it is open for the petitioner to avail the remedy as provided under Section 17 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the bank has rightly pointed out that Rule 8 provides for detailed procedure including issue of notice by the bank to the borrower before any possession is taken or sale is effected. The detailed procedure is prescribed in SARFAESI Act,2002. The rule clearly indicates that the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to raise the issue in appropriate statutory proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. As the petitioner has statutory remedy to redress his grievance,the writ petition is not being entertained leaving the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act,2002.It shall be open for the petitioner to issue his all objections under the SARFAESI Act,2002.

The writ petition is dismissed.”

5. After dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy,the bank issued possession notice dated 22.10.2012 which according to the learned counsel for the appellant was in the nature of taking a measure as contemplated under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act,2002. On receiving the possession letter dated 22.1-0.2012 the appellant initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A. No. 469 of 2012. The respondent-bank raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of S.A. on the ground that proceedings could not be maintained as the letter dated 22.10.2012 did not constitute a measure as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Supplementary objections in support of the preliminary objections were also raised. The appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 filed by the appellant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 17.12.2012 as non-maintainable. The tribunal’s order dated 17.12.2012 gave rise to Writ Petition No. 148 of 2013. The writ petition was also dismissed by means of the impugned judgment dated 21.1.2013.

6. The relevant extract of the judgment passed by the writ Court is reproduced below:

“Rule 8 contemplates that the authorised officer shall take or cause to be taken possession by delivering a notice prepared in appendix IV of the Rules. Therefore, when notice prepared under appendix IV of the Rules is possession notice of immovable property and it clearly records that the possession has been taken of the property then an appeal shall lie there against under Section 17 of the Act.

A joint per