N. K. JAIN, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-2-2002 passed in Paul D'souza and Others v Canara Bank, bangalore and Others, wherein this Court while allowing the writ petition has set aside the Office Order No. 12, dated 2-12-1996 and remitted the man - back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the interlocutory applications in accordance with law. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order passed by the Presiding Officer, as well as the Registrar of Debt recovery Tribunal, is appealable under the Recovery of Debts due to banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and that the learned Single judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition. It is his further argument that the learned Single Judge has also erred in observing that the judgment will be made applicable prospectively, that is from the date of the order and therefore this observation is unsustainable in law. Further, he submits that he has no grievance in case as per the remand order the Tribunal considers the legal representatives' application along with other interlocutory applications but this should not be a precedent in future. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection for remanding the matter. But so far as legal representatives' application and interlocutory applications are concerned the same can be considered by the Tribunal as per the directions given by the learned single Judge in Paul D'souza's case, supra. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties, perused the materials on record and as agreed the appeal is finally disposed of. ( 5 ) THE matter pertains to recovery of loan by the Bank and a remedy is available under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 and further the provision of Section 20 of the Act provides that the order of a Debt Recovery Tribunal is appealable before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In the instant case, neither the point of jurisdiction nor violation of 'principles of natural justice' is in issue. Under the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that no writ is maintainable. In the instant case, neither the point of jurisdiction nor violation of 'principles of natural justice' is in issue. Under the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that no writ is maintainable. The learned Counsel for the appellants-Banks submits that to avoid the delay, he has no objection for the legal representatives' application to be considered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal as per the direction but it should not be a precedent, to which the learned Counsels for respondents-petitioners has no objection as stated. ( 6 ) ON consideration and as agreed, the legal representatives' application can be considered as per the direction of the learned Single Judge before the Tribunal without making it a precedent. It is also made clear that the decision of the learned Single Judge will not be a precedent and the Debt Recovery Tribunal without being influenced by any observation made by the learned Single Judge will expedite the matter. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .