THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.4802 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted questioning the action of respondents 1 and 2 in bringing land of an extent of Ac.0-57 cents in Survey No.476/3, in Rangachari Street, Chittoor Town, Chittoor Municipality, Chittoor District, on which a two storied building standing there at Door No.13-32, mortgaged in their favour for sale, as bad in law. The case of the writ petitioner is that her grandfather Sri G. Doraiswamy, was the original owner and possessor of the aforementioned estate and that the said grandfather has executed a registered Will on 24-08-2001 and that he passed away on 16-11-2001 and that as per the said will, only a life interest was created in favour of the grandmother of the writ petitioner herein, who is still alive; and that subsequent to her death the 3rd respondent, who is the father of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner, were conferred with life interest in the said property and in that view of the matter, the 3rd respondent could not have created mortgage deed in favour of respondents 1 and 2, who could not have accepted the same without such a subsisting right available to the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent bank has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court on 26-07-2010 in Civil Appeal arising out S.L.P.(c ) No.10145 of 2010, wherein the Supreme Court has clearly held that the alternative remedy, which has been provided under the Statute, could not have been bypassed by a party without exhausting the same. Following the latest judgment, which has reviewed the entire case law on the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, including that of COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX AND OTHERS v. INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LIMITED[1] and CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DOSU AARDESHIR BHIWANDIWALA AND OTHERS[2], it is only appropriate that this writ petition should be dismissed, leaving it open to the writ petitioner to exhaust such remedies as are available to her, under law. With this, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. It is also appropriate to record that the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, has been taking up cases on regular basis now. ------------------------------------ Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 13h December 2011 [1] (2008) 3 SCC 688 [2] (2009) 1 SCC 168