Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Shri Piyush Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 13.9.2018 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar whereby in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act, 2002) it has been directed that the possession of Arazi No. 983, Village Rawatpur Mauja Rawatpur, Ramlala Road, Kanpur be taken and if the possession of the secured asset is not handed over to the applicant Bank (respondent No. 3) then help of the police may be taken in this regard.

3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he had taken a term loan (Housing) of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 7.2.2003 from the respondent -Bank against which he mortgaged the property in question being Arazi No. 983, Rawatpur Gaon, Mauja Rawatpur, Ramlala Road, Kanpur Nagar. It is also stated that for various reasons his scooter business did not succeed and ultimately failed, therefore, he could not deposit the loan instalment. The respondent Bank filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner being Suit No. 2689 of 2009 (State Bank of India v. Jafar Ahmad Khan). It is stated that the said suit is still pending in the Court of ACMM, V Kanpur Nagar. It is stated that in addition the respondent Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 being Misc No. 6563 of 2016 (State Bank of India v. Jafar Ahmad Khan) before the Court of C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar in which the Bank has filed affidavit stating that no other case is pending in respect of the property in question in any Court. It is stated that in the proceedings before the C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the impugned order has been passed.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 supported by affidavit has been filed on false allegation that no other case in respect of the property is pending when infact the respondent Bank has also filed a suit No. 2689 of 2009 which is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that against the order of the C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar dated 13.9.2018, the petitioner has no other remedy in law except to file the present writ petition.

5. What we find from the entire body of the writ petition is that there is not a single averment in the nature of an undertaking on behalf of the petitioner borrower that he is ready and willing to pay the loan amount. The only ground on which this writ petition has been filed is that the application under Section 14 is supported by an affidavit in which false averment has been made, therefore, he has no other remedy in law.

6. A reading of the impugned order discloses that notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued to the petitioner and thereafter a news paper publication was also made in respect of the said property.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since the loan amount was only Rs. 2 lakhs. The minimum pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is Rs. 10 lakhs under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1993). Therefore, even against an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner would not have appropriate remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

8. In our opinion the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. An identical issue was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patialia v. Mukesh Jain and others, (2017) 1 SCC 53. In that case against recovery