IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1725 of 2011 GOPAL KRISHAN SHARMA s/o late Gangadhar Sharma Resident of Anar Ganga Basenti Dham, Castair Town Deoghar, P.S. Dist-Deoghar, Jharkhand Versus 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Branch at Budh Marg, Post Officer-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, Town District-Patna. 2. M/S New Fashion trading agency, having its workshop at East Ashok Nagar, Lane No. 2 P.S. Kankarbagh, Dist-Patna and workshop at Pachim Darwaza P.S. Sultanganj Dist Patna and Office at Ujjain Hotel, Dak Bunglow Road, P.S. Kotwali, Dist-Patna. 3. Sri Krishna Kumar Sharma, S/o Sri Gangadhar Sharma of Tarekeshwar Path, P.S. Kankarbagh, Dist-Patna and of Mohalla 99/100 Govind Nagar, Amar Road, Jaipur, P.S. Amar road, Dist-Jaipur State Rajasthan and of Basanti Dham, Caster Town, Baij Nath Dham P.s. Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar. 4. Sri Basant Sao, D/o Dukhu Sao of Village Gaya and Resident of Road No. 1 Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadamkuan, Dist-Patna and of East Ashok Nagar Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagth Dist Patna. 5. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, through the In charge Registrar, Bank Road, Behind Goal Ghar, Patna. ----------- 4 1.3.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 21.12.2010 passed under the provisions of Section 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Amendment Act 2000, by the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Bihar in Ex (OA) Case No. 5 of 2009 by which he allowed the application 2 of the applicant-decree holder Bank and granted certificate for recovery of debts under Section 31A (2) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several objections against the impugned order claiming that it was beyond jurisdiction and only for assuming jurisdiction interest had been added to the principal amount and that the impugned order is an ex parte order without service of any notice upon the petitioner attracting the provision of Section 22(2)(G) of the Act and also that the document of the Board contains forged signature of the petitioner and there was not address given on the letter of guarantee. He also argued on merits. 4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it transpires that against such order a provision of appeal before the appropriate tribunal has been specifically provided under Section 20 of the Act but without availing the aforesaid appropriate and efficacious remedy the petitioner has wrongly approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction, as the entire 3 question raised by him can be legally and validly decided by the aforesaid Appellate Tribunal. 5. In the said circumstances this writ petition is dismissed. However, This order shall not effect any such appeal if filed against the impugned order. Prakash (S.Nayer Hussain, J.)