Judgment ( 1. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in the writ hence, it merits dismissal ( 2. ) WHAT is challenged in this writ is a summon/notice, dated 2-12-1998 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In fact, the respondent - a Bank has filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of outstanding loan amount in Debt Recovery Tribunal. The suit was entertained by the Tribunal and accordingly, notice of suit was issued by the Tribunal to the petitioner (as Non applicant) requesting them (petitioner) to file written statement. It is against the issuance of this notice itself, the petitioner became aggrieved and filed this writ. Notice was issued to respondent. They are served and represented. ( 3. ) HEARD Shri P. K. Saxena, learned senior counsel with Shri Rawka, counsel for petitioner and Shri Shastri, learned counsel for respondent. ( 4. ) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the petitioner was that on the earlier occasion, the issue relating to petitioners liability was decided in their favour by the Tehsildar by order, dated 4-12-1997 (Annexure P-3) hence, respondent had no right to file a suit for recovery of the amount. According to petitioner, the order of Tehsildar operates as res judicata in all subsequent proceedings inter se parties in relation to loan dispute and hence, filing of suit is bad for want of cause of action. In my view, the argument is not acceptable. ( 5. ) IN a situation like the one, arising therefore, the remedy of petitioner is to file the written statement in answer to suit filed by the respondent and raise all factual as also the legal pleas which according to them arise in their favour while defending the action. Indeed, this is the only correct and proper procedure to follow in such cases. The writ court cannot be called upon to decide the issues of facts as also law. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no prejudice caused or likely to cause in case, if the petitioner as defendant of the suit, file the written statement and raise all pleas, to enable the Tribunal to decide the issues. ( 6. The writ court cannot be called upon to decide the issues of facts as also law. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no prejudice caused or likely to cause in case, if the petitioner as defendant of the suit, file the written statement and raise all pleas, to enable the Tribunal to decide the issues. ( 6. ) IN view of what I have observed supra, I do not wish to express my opinion on the question whether finding recorded by the Tehsildar is legal or not ? or, Whether he had the jurisdiction to give any such finding, and if so, under what provision of law ? or, Whether Tehsildar could even embark upon any such inquiry to give such finding in favour of petitioner so as to take away the rights of the respondents to file a suit under the provisions of Debt Recovery Act. All these questions can be taken note of by the Tribunal while deciding the suit filed by the respondent. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid limited discussion, which alone according to me is sufficient, the petition fails and is dismissed. As a consequence, all interim stay granted in this case are hereby vacated. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 27-1-2003 to enable the Tribunal to decide the case on merits in accordance with law preferably within six months from the date of appearance of parties.