Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 12. 2007 made in I.A.No.2533 of 2007 in O.A.(S)No.137 of 2007 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. 2. This revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 3. Mr. SV. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the revision itself is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in support of his contention, he relied on the decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 3208 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: "5.....The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum. 6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under S.20 and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Articles 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act." 4. In the light of the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the aggrieved party cannot prefer any Civil Revision Petition by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, before this Court, since alternative remedy is available, under the Act. The same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 5. The same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that at least the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore may be directed to dispose of the O.A. at an early date when there is no jurisdiction vested with this Court, against the impugned order, I am of the view that such a direction cannot be given to the Tribunal. 6. In the impugned order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, has held that on the circumstances, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner/applicant therein to advance their arguments and accordingly, the sale fixed on 112. 2007 has been ordered to adjourned, subject to the condition that the petitioner/applicant remits a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) on or before 112. 2007 to the respondent bank towards their liability and the balance sum of Rs.8.50 lakhs (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty thousand Only) to be remitted on or before 212. 2007 to the first respondent towards the liability and the matter was ordered to be posted on 212. 2007. In case of default of making the payment as stated above, the respondent would be at liberty to proceed with the sale as per schedule and as published and on payment of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only), the sale shall be adjourned to 212. 2007 and if the second instalment of Rs.8.50 lakhs is not paid on or before 212. 2007 as per the order, appropriate orders will be passed by the Tribunal on 212. 2007. Admittedly, the order was not complied with by the revision petitioner. 7. As there is no jurisdiction empowered with this Court at this stage, the civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails and accordingly liable to be dismissed. In such circumstances, this Court cannot issue any direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, to meet the ends of justice, the petitioners are permitted to move before the appropriate forum within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.