Courts must refrain from intervening if an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the law.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

….......................................

….......................................................... Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2026 JUDGMENT This original petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P7 order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, in SA No.241 of 2009.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The petitioner is the applicant in SA No.241 of 2009, and he filed the afore SA, when the bank attempted to sell his property under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act' for short). During the pendency of the SA, the petitioner filed Ext.P5, IA No.4738 of 2025 in SA No.241 of 2009, seeking a stay of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery for taking possession of the secured asset. The learned tribunal vide Ext.P7 order dated 12.03.2026, dismissed the IA No.4738 of

2025.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P7 order passed by the learned tribunal is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. He also submitted that the SA is still pending and till that time, the coercive steps initiated against the petitioner may be kept in abeyance.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and

2 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge Ext.P7 order before the appellate tribunal.

6. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, to challenge Ext.P7 order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision in Sreedhar K vs. M/s.Raus Construction Pvt.Ltd ( 2023 KHC OnLine 6012 ) and a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Union of India vs. Alice Ulahannan ( 2025 KHC OnLine 2217 ) have categorically held that, the High Court must not entertain petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgement and order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal since, the aggrieved persons have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal. In such circumstances, I do no find any reason to entertain this original petition and grant reliefs to the petitioner.

Ergo, this original petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy.