IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1365 of 2009 1. MD. TAIYAB, S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR, R/O MOHALLA- NEW COLONY SADPURA, P.O.- RAMNA, P.S.- MITHANPURA, TOWN AND DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 2. SMT. HAMIDA KHATOON, W/O MD. TAIYAB, R/O MOHALLA- NEW COLONY SADPURA, P.O.- RAMNA, P.S.- MITHANPURA, TOWN AND DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR ……….. APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS / APPELLANTS Versus 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MOTIJHEEL BRANCH, MUZAFFARPUR, P.O. AND DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MOTIJHEEL BRANCH, P.O. & DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 3. SHRI R.K. OJHA, REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MOTIJHEEL, P.O. & DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR …….. ……. RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 08.04.2010. Questioning the correctness of the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 10766/2009, the present appeal has been filed under Section X of the Letters Patent. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge it transpires that the learned single Judge has declined to interfere as the writ petitioner-appellant can move the appellate tribunal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2 In our considered opinion, when statutory remedy of appeal is available to the writ petitioner-appellant, the non-interference by the learned single Judge cannot be found fault with and, accordingly, we concur with the same. In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed in limine. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. ) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )