IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16619 of 2010 Murlidhar Mishra, son of Late Bhup Narayan Mishra, Resident of Village- Pindaruchh, P.S. Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Bank of India through the Chairman, The State Bank of India, Nariman Point, Bombay, (Maharashtra) 2. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Gandhi Maidan, Patna 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Patna City, Patna ………….. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Subodh Kumar Jha, Sri Krishna Kumar and Pran Kumar Jha, Advocates For the State Bank of India: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate ----------- 2. 1.10.2010 The petitioner has come to this Court against the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in M.A. No. 40/2009 arising out of O.A. No. 25/2001 by which the application of the petitioner under Section 22(2-d & g) of the Recovery of Debt due to Bank & Financial Institution Act, 1993 for recalling/setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 17.5.2006 passed in the said O.A. by the Tribunal has been rejected and for further consequential reliefs. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank takes a preliminary objection that the writ petition is barred by the alternative statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act. It is further submitted 2 that the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 of the Tribunal has become final as no appeal has been filed within 45 days as provided by the said Section and in the said circumstances, the writ application ought to be dismissed as not maintainable. This Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by availing appropriate statutory remedy. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)