Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, Bank of India, has come forward with the present Revision against the fair and decretal order dated 17. 2006 made by the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, in I.A. No. 1030 of 2006 in OS. No.1348 of 2006. 2. The first respondent herein had laid the said Suit against the petitioner and one C. Natarajan, the second respondent in this Revision, for payment injunction restraining them from in any way disturbing her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-to the second respondent. Since the petitioner-Bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, herein referred to as SARFAESI Act, She had laid the said Suit. In the said Suit, she has taken out an Application in I.A. No.1030 of 2006 for interim injunction. The learned trial Judge, by his order dated 17. 2006, granted interim order. Questioning the said order and also consequently seeking rejection of the main Suit, the present Revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the Suit instituted by the first respondent herein is not at all maintainable in view of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act. For an answer to the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that since the first respondent has not challenged any of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the Suit is perfectly maintainable. In reply to the said argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Section 17 of the said Act, if the first respondent has got any claim, she could file an Appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction and without filling an Appeal before the said forum, the Suit itself is not maintainable. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as first respondent. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, if the first respondent has got any right or aggrieved over the initiation of proceedings by the petitioner bank under the SARFAESI Act the remedy of the first respondent is to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing an Appeal that is provided for under Section 17 of the said Act. Without doing so, the first respondent has filed the Suit and obtained interim order. 6. In view of the stated position, the interim order that has been granted in I.A. No.1030 of 2006 dated 17. 2006 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. 7. In the result, the order of the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, dated 17. 2006 made in I.A. No.1030 of 2006 in O.S. No.1348 of 2006 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. However, since the first respondent should have filed an Appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which such proceedings have been taken and now that the first respondent was prosecuting the matter before the Civil Court and since the matter is pending before this Court also, I am inclined to grant some time to the first respondent to take appropriate proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The first respondent is granted two weeks time from this date to take appropriate proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, if the first respondent chooses to do so. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Petition is closed.