R. C. LAHOTI,j. ( 1 ) THE petitioners seek Writ of Certiorari setting aside the judgement and decree dated 25. 8. 1992passed by the Court of District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 85/ 86 Delhi Financial Corporation Vs. the petitioners. The petitioners arc the principal debtors and sureties. Thedistrictcourthas,on an application filed by Delhi Financial Corporation under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, determined the liability of the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 48,854. 37 with interest. ( 2 ) THE sole grievance of the petitioners is that Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter the Act , for short) does not contemplate a suit being filed and tried and hence no judgement and decree could have been passed therein. ( 3 ) THOUGH at the first blush the contention raised appears to be sound but on a little probe we find the petitioners contention meritless. ( 4 ) AS against erring borrowers of the financial corporation, the Act contemplates three types of remedies available. Section 29 provides for the Financial Corporations right to take over the management or possession or both ofthedefaultingindustrial concern as well as the right to transfer by way of lease or sale or realise the property pledged etc. Section 30 provides for power to call for repayment before the agreed period in certain contingencies. Section 31 makes special provisions for enforcement of claims by financial corporations. The reliefs which may be given by the District Court are:- 1. An order for the sale of the property pledged etc, with the financial corporation as security. 2. Transferring the management of the industrial concern to the financial corporation. 3. An ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from parting with its property. 5. Section 32 prescribes the procedure to be followed by District Judge presented with an application u/s 31. ( 6 ) IT is well settled now with a catena of pronouncements that an application under Section 31 of the Act is not a plaint and proceedings thereon or not a suit. (See-Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Jaycee Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 1991 (2) SCC 637 ; Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration and Other AIR 1978 SC 1675 ; M/s. Parkash Playing Cards Manufacturing Co. , Delhi and Ors. Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation, AIR 1980 Delhi - 48 ). (See-Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Jaycee Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 1991 (2) SCC 637 ; Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration and Other AIR 1978 SC 1675 ; M/s. Parkash Playing Cards Manufacturing Co. , Delhi and Ors. Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation, AIR 1980 Delhi - 48 ). Nevertheless in the very nature of the power conferred on the District Judge under Section 31 of the Act some sort of inquiry, howsoever summary, is contemplated which would enable determination of the liability in terms of money for which sale of property, transfer of management or attachment may be made. In fact sub-section (6) of Section 32 itsf provides that on a cause being shown by the debtor and sureties against the proposed action, the District Judge shall proceed to investigate the claim of the Financial Corporation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, insofaras such provisions may be applied thereto. The Act does not provide, nor does contemplate, coercive processes for recovery being issued merely for asking of financial corporation. ( 7 ) THE challenge laid by the petitioners to the propriety of the District Judge having tried the application as a suit leads the petitioners nowhere. A reading of the judgement of the District Court shows that a rope longer than the one contemplated by the Act was given to the petitioners. Their all the please against the proposed action were permitted to be substantiated fully and in details. True it is that the District Court was not required to write a judgement and. draw up adecree, It would have sufficed if anorder in the terms contemplated by Section 32. (7) would have been passed. Still what the District Court has done has not in any manner prejudiced the petitioners. In our opinion there is no justification behind the petitioners coming up to this court and feeling unnecessarily aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the District Court and labels of judgement and decree having been assigned by it to its ultimate formal expression. It would have, been better if the petitioners would have far from diverting their attention to the proceedings before this court, made a sincere effort at meeting their financial liability owing to the corporation. The petition is dismissed.