HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2335 of 2010 Date: July 04, 2011 Between: 1. Rajesh Janyavula & another. … Petitioners and 1. State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2335 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 14.10.2010 passed in Crl.M.P. No.3168 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioners herein are, admittedly, borrowers from the second respondent-bank. According to the second respondent, the petitioners committed default in payment of equated monthly instalments and their account was classified as NPA. Thereafter, notice under Section 13 (2) was issued demanding payment of Rs.68,05,638-31 ps. but the same has not been complied with. Hence, the respondent-bank initiated measures under Section 13 (4) of the Act by filing application Crl.M.P. No.3168 of 2010 before the competent Magistrate for appointing an advocate-commissioner to take possession of the secured asset i.e., schedule immovable property and handover the same to the bank. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate allowed the said application and appointed Sri A. Surender Goud, Advocate, as commissioner to take possession of the schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after receiving the notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act, the petitioners made certain payments to the bank, but the bank has suppressed the same and filed the application seeking possession. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-bank would contend that the criminal revision case is not maintainable, as the statute provides for remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act. 6. It can be seen from the provisions of the Act that one of the measures that the bank can take under Section 13 (4) for recovery of the secured debt is to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower. Section 14 of the Act enables the secured creditor to approach the competent Magistrate having jurisdiction with a request to take possession of the assets. Section 17 of the Act provides for right to appeal to any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the Act taken by the creditor, to make an application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. If aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, there is a further right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act. 7. Admittedly, the grievance of the petitioners is in respect of the measures taken by the bank under Section 13 (4) of the Act. The remedy prescribed by the statute over such grievance is to make an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. When the statute prescribes a remedy of appeal, the question of entertaining a revision against the said orders, which is appealable, does not arise. It is open to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal if permissible under law. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J Date: July 04, 2011. BSB