Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike down the proceedings in appeal bearing S.A.No: 97 of 2007 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, at Chennai filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, since according to the revision petitioner, the same has been taken on file without jurisdiction. 2. According to the revision petitioner-Bank it is the secured creditor, which initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against M/s.Dhinakar Trading to recover its dues from the said borrowers NPA Account. The borrower challenged the proceedings by filing several writ petitions, which were ultimately dismissed. Though this Court gave liberty to the borrower to approach the DRT, the same was not availed within the specified period. Hence the secured asset was brought for sale, which was challenged before the DRT. This revision is filed challenging the said proceedings. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent herein purchased the secured asset fully knowing the actions initiated by the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act and therefore he is not a bona fide purchaser. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act prohibits further encumbrance over the secured assets after the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued. The contention that the said prohibition is not absolute in view of the specimen possession notice provided under Appendix (iv) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 is not tenable since it is settled law that where there is conflict between the Rules and Act, the Act alone will prevail. Further, the specimen notice only cautions the public about the charge created in favour of the secured creditor. .4. According to the respondent he purchased the property from one Bala Ganesan and from the legal heirs of one A.Jayarathan by a sale deed dated 24. 2005 for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,79,00,000/=. It is his case that he was not aware of the mortgage of 50% of the undivided share of the property with the petitioner-bank. Subsequently knowing the same, he approached the DRT and expressing his willingness to settle the borrowed amount on showing on concession. Subsequently the Bank issued a tender cum auction notice under Section 13 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the Appeal 97 of 2007 and on 13. Subsequently knowing the same, he approached the DRT and expressing his willingness to settle the borrowed amount on showing on concession. Subsequently the Bank issued a tender cum auction notice under Section 13 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the Appeal 97 of 2007 and on 13. 2007 the DRT directed him to pay Rs.30,60,138.43 being the simple interest on Rs.67,20,520.61 on or before 23. 2007. Aggrieved by the said direction, an appeal was before the DRAT in I.A.No.228 of 2007 in I.N.No:168 of 2007. On 23. 2007 the DRAT granted interim stay on condition that the respondent shall deposit Rs.35.00 lakhs, out of which 5 lakhs shall be deposited on or before 23. 2007 and another Rs.15 lakhs on or before 20.4.2007 and the balance of Rs.15 lakhs on or before 20.5.2007. On that basis the respondent approached the Bank and expressed his willingness to deposit the sums, but the same was refused by the Bank on the ground that they have obtained interim stay of the order passed by the DRT and refused to receive the sum of Rs.5 lakhs, as initial payment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the revision itself is not maintainable since this High Court and the Honble Supreme Court on various occasions while dealing with the similar matter by a catena of decisions held that when there is an alternative remedy available, the CRP is not maintainable. In the present case there is an alternative remedy of appeal under the Act before the DRAT. Even looked from the angle that this court has supervisory jurisdiction, the same is confined only to see whether an inferior court or a Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct the error apparent on the face of the record. To the said effect, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions reported in 2003 Vol.II CTC 393; 2004 (5) CTC 718 ; 2001 Vol.III CTC 555; and 2003 AIR SCW 930. 6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the property is indivisible and the property mortgaged to the bank is only 50% and therefore the very auction conducted by the Bank is only a distress auction. 6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the property is indivisible and the property mortgaged to the bank is only 50% and therefore the very auction conducted by the Bank is only a distress auction. It is also submitted that this Court in its decision in 2006 (5) CTC 753 held that Section 17(1) of the Act gives the right of appeal to the borrower and Section 17(3) appoints the DRT as the Appellate Authority and under Section 13(4) on its satisfaction restore possession of such property to the borrower and also restore management of business to the borrower. .7. But a perusal of the typed set of papers would go to show that the respondent is not a bona fide purchaser since the very same counsel has been appearing in all the proceedings before this Court, DRT and other forums and he has drafted the Sale Deed also and therefore even during arguments he was compelled to admit that he is not a bona fide purchaser. Further the application of the respondent before the DRT itself is not maintainable since in the present case the measure taken by the secured creditor is under Section 13(4) of the Act and possession has also been taken on 12. 2003. Further, after sale notice is issued, the only remedy to the borrower to stop the sale is under Section 13(8) of the Act. As per the said provision the borrower is entitled to pay the entire demand amount with cost, interest, etc., and thereupon the secured creditor is liable to stop the sale, which provision has not been invoked by the respondent herein. Though the respondent expressed his willingness to deposit the amounts, the amount was not paid or deposited. 8. Further, the sale is an independent action taken by the secured creditor as if he is the owner of the secured asset. If the action taken under Section 13(4) of the Act is not challenged or if it is unsuccessfully challenged, the secured asset vest with the secured creditor as if he is the true owner as has been held by the Apex Court in Transcore Case reported in 2006 (5) CTC 753. 9. Apart from the above, the Act provides a period of 45 days to file an application against the measure taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. 9. Apart from the above, the Act provides a period of 45 days to file an application against the measure taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. But in the instant case, though liberty was given on 16. 2006 in the writ petition to file an appeal under Section 17, within four weeks, the respondent did not avail the said opportunity. Further, after the property was brought for sale, the respondent filed an application before the DRT and obtained an order by consent on condition of deposit of principal amount of over Rs.67,00,000/= before the date of auction and admitted interest amount of about Rs.30 lakhs within four weeks. But the said condition was not complied with by him. Instead, he has challenged the said direction of DRT and obtained a interim stay from the DRAT. Even the promise given by the respondent before this court was not honoured. Though the undertaking was given in the month of April, 2007, no earnest step was taken by the respondent to settle the account of the borrower. 10. It is also to be seen that the property mortgaged was 50% undivided share along with the entire first floor of the building which has been sold in the auction to a third party for the bid amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/= as against the total outstanding of over Rs.1,81,00,000/=. Therefore, at this stage it will not be fair to show indulgence to the respondent. 11. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.A.No:97 of 2007 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai is struck off as the same has been entertained without any jurisdiction.