Judgment :- Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent who would focus the attention of this Court with regard to the maintainability of this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India relying on a ratio decidenti in Sadhana Lodh v- National Insurance Co., Ltd and another (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1561). The learned Senior counsel would contend that the order passed in I.A.No.730 of 2002 is under challenge by way of this revision petition whereas the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks Financial Institutions Act 1993 (15 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") provides an appeal against the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 20 of the said Act and that without availing the remedy of filing an appeal as provided under Section 20 of the said Act, the revision petitioners have filed this revision petition which is not maintainable as per the dictum in Sadhana Loh -v- National Insurance Co., Ltd and another (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1561) wherein the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court is as follows: "The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy of filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution on the premises that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. Section 149 (2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) of the Act................. This being the legal position, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to High Court to entertain a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution". The learned Senior counsel would further represent that the said proposition of law has been reiterated in the following dictums. 1) D. Roja and seven Others -v- Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, Madras-3 (1998 (1) CTC 338). 2) The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6 and Others -v- G. Venkatesan ( 2004 (4) CTC 696 ). The learned Senior counsel would further represent that the said proposition of law has been reiterated in the following dictums. 1) D. Roja and seven Others -v- Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, Madras-3 (1998 (1) CTC 338). 2) The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6 and Others -v- G. Venkatesan ( 2004 (4) CTC 696 ). 3) P. Subramanian -v- M/s. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. ( 2004 (5) CTC 718 ). 4) S. Rangarajan and two Others -v- M/s. Nathans Foundation Ltd. ( 2007 (3) CTC 662 ). Under such circumstances, I am of the view that Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable when an appeal provision is available to the revision petitioner under Section 20 of the said Act. 2. In fine, the revision petition is dismissed with a liberty to the revision petitioner to avail an appeal remedy as provided under Section 20 of the said Act. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.2 and 3 are also dismissed. Time for the purpose of limitation will run from today.