JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. Challenging the legality and the validity of the appellate judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 (FTC), Tinsukia, in Title Appeal No. 2/2005 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tinsukia in TS No. 45/2000 allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff with costs, the present Second Appeal has been filed. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law in support of the challenge. 1) Whether on dismissal of the Misc(J) Case No. 62/99. a proceeding under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, before the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, without granting liberty to file a fresh suit, the notice under Section 29 of the Act under Reference No. AFC/TSK/Legal/L-2015/2000-2001/526 issued by the Principal defendant/respondent was barred under Order 23, Rule 4(1), CPC? 2) Whether decisions of the Lower Appellate Court in issue Nos. 3 and 4 reversing the finding of the trial Court are perverse? 3. In support of the first substantial questions of law, Mr. Bhowmik submits that the Corporation initially having filed an application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act in order to get necessary relief as provided thereon, approached the learned District Judge, Tinsukia and during the pendency of the said application, a prayer was made for withdrawal of the suit, which was, however, ultimately dismissed for default. Thereafter, the Corporation issued notice to the plaintiff/appellant under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act expressing its intention to exercise its right over the industries of the plaintiff for default in payment of loan amount. 4. The learned Counsel submits that earlier case filed under Section 31 of the Act having been dismissed for default, the respondent is not entitled to file a fresh petition under Section 29 of the Act seeking the other remedy available thereunder. Hence, the learned Court below has committed wrong in holding that notice under Section 29 was maintainable. 5. Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that the Corporation can proceed with both the rights under Sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act. The Corporation can exercise its right under Section 31 without prejudice to right envisaged under Section 29 of the Act. 5. Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that the Corporation can proceed with both the rights under Sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act. The Corporation can exercise its right under Section 31 without prejudice to right envisaged under Section 29 of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-rolling Mills reported in [1994] 1 SCR 857 and submits that as per ratio of the said judgment such course of action is permissible under the Act. He also made a reference to another decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v.Jagadamba Oil Mills and Anr. reported in [2002] 1 SCR 621 and pointing out to paragraph 13 of the judgment submits that the courts other than the High Courts are not to interfere with action under Section 29 of the Act unless it is shown to the Court that the action of the Corporation is in violation of the statutory provisions or where the Corporation acts unfairly and unreasonably. 6. By filing a counter affidavit, the Corporation has brought on record that in fact on 26.9.2000, itself, pursuant to the notice impugned in the suit, the Corporation took over the industrial unit and a part of it was sold on 26.3.2004. Accordingly, the relief sought for in the suit is not available to the plaintiff at this stage. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that on earlier occasion, the Corporation approached the learned District Judge by filing an application under Section 31 of the Act. Section 31 of the Act is a special provision under the State Financial Corporation Act. On such an application, if the Court is satisfied entitled to pass an order to sell an industrial unit, if in breach of any agreement, it makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, without prejudice to the provisions of Section29 of the Act Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 29 provides aright upon the Financial Corporation that in case of default of an industrial unit, which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under as agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, the Financial Corporation shall have a right to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concerned, as well as the right to transfer by way of lease or sale and realize the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation. In exercise of such powers, an application under Section 31 of the Act, the Corporation issued a notice to the plaintiff for default 8. The Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Financial Corporation (supra), at paragraph-15 of the judgment dealing with such rights has held as follows: 15. The Doctrine of Election clearly suggests that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the party to whom the said remedies are available has the option to elect either of them but that doctrine would not apply to cases where the ambit and scope of the two remedies is essentially different. To hold otherwise may lead to injustice and inconsistent results. Since, the Corporation must be held entitled and given full protection by the Court to recover its dues it cannot be bound down to adopt only one of the two remedies provided under the Act. In our opinion, the Corporation can initially take recourse to Section 31 of the Act but withdraw or abandon it at any stage and take recourse to the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, which Section deals with not only the rights but also provides a self-contained remedy to the Corporation chooses to take recourse to the remedy available under Section 31of the Act and pursues the same to the logical conclusion and obtains an order or decree, it may thereafter execute the order or decree, in the manner provided by Section 32 (7) and (8) of the Act. The explanation, however, may withdraw of (sic) Act. The explanation, however, may withdraw of (sic) Act. A 'decree' under Section 31 of the Act not being a money decree or a decree for realization of the dues of the Corporation, as held in [1979] 1 SCR 372 (supra), recourse to it cannot debar the Corporation from taking recourse to the provisions of Section 29 of the Act by not pursuing the decree or order under section 31 of the Act, in which event the order made under Section 31 of the Act, would serve in aid of the relief available under Section 29 of the Act. 9. The application filed under Section 31 of the Act was not decided on merit. In fact, there is no judicial determination about the liability on the said application filed under Section 31. The rights under Sections 29 and 31 of the Act are independent one. 10. In view of the above facts situation and in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Andhra Pradesh Financial Corporation (supra), the substantial questions of law so framed is answered in negative and against the appellant. Regarding other substantial question of law relating to perversity of the judgment, no materials could be shown as to on what count the said judgment is perverse. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed