Judgment :- The first respondent herein is the third-party to O.S.No.239 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. It is a suit for preliminary decree for appointing an administrator or panel of administrators, to obtain a true and correct accounts of assets and liabilities of Late P.S. Shanmugam, Chitrakala and Minor. Upendra Sundara Raj and that of the defendants 1 to 4 and take possession of the properties and administer them and prepare a list of creditors, to sell the properties and realise all other assets and discharge the debts due to the creditors and other liabilities according to law and handover the remaining assets to the defendants, prohibiting them by means of a permanent injunction from in any manner alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit properties and such other items of properties in their possession and power. 2. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 012. 1998 and administrators were also appointed. The first respondent has filed an application under Section 151 CPC. In the affidavit it is stated that the Late P.S. Shanmugam and his brother P.S. Sengottuvelu and others were running a Private Limited Company and for the development of the same, they availed Medium Term Loan on 04.04.1994 for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-from the Bank and the credit facilities were secured by an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds relating to the immovable properties. As on 010. 2002, a sum of Rs.3,24,99,791/- is payable by all the Directors, who are jointly and severally liable. 1. Since there is a default in payment, their secured creditors issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act) and notifying the default committed by the Company in respect of the secured debt classified as non-performing assets and directed to discharge the above said debts within sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice dated 010. 2002. In default, the secured creditors as per Section 13(4)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of the above said Act, the secured creditors(Bank) shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights granted under the above said Sections including inter alia right to take possession of the secured assets and by way of lease assignment or sale and realise the secured assets. 2. 2. 2. 2. As per the above said Act, the petitioner Bank shall be entitled to take possession of the secured assets morefully described hereunder. Hence, the Court may direct the administrators/respondents to handover the possession and keys relating to the immovable properties. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents made an endorsement on the petition acceding to the request made by the petitioner and hence, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, has passed an order allowing the petition on 06.01.2006 directing the administrators to handover the possession within two months. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who is the second plaintiff in the suit, would submit that whatever may be the order passed by the Court below, this petitioner and other plaintiffs should have been given notice about filing of the petition and that without notice to them the order was passed, which is not sustainable. It is his further contention that the preliminary decree passed in the suit directed the creditors to make their claim in three months to the administrators and no claim made after three months shall be considered by the administrators, whereas, the first respondent has filed the claim much after the time limit of three months has elapsed and so, this claim is time barred. It is further contended that the administrators without getting leave of the Trial Judge and without putting the parties to notice against the terms of the preliminary decree have made endorsement that they will deliver possession of the properties and keys to the first respondent and that the administrators have no power to make such endorsement. 5. It is the mainstay of the first respondent that being a secured creditor, he is entitled to proceed against the debtors under the Act and that he is entitled to take possession of the properties as per the provisions of the Act. He placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1989-2-L.W.366 (Ashok Kumar Kedia v. Balaji Builders and Another) in which it is held that the parties to the suit have to be impleaded in the interlocutory petitions. He placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1989-2-L.W.366 (Ashok Kumar Kedia v. Balaji Builders and Another) in which it is held that the parties to the suit have to be impleaded in the interlocutory petitions. It is observed in the decision that regarding the non-impleadment, it is always just and fair to implead all the parties to a proceedings in every interlocutory applications, but it is unfortunate that a practice is existing to implead only some of the parties in applications, claiming that the others impleaded in the main matter are not necessary parties in the concerned application. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would place reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (4) CTC 360 (Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Lakkampatti Branch, 70, Sathi Main Road, Karatadipalayam, Gopichettipalayam -638 543 v. N. Natarajan and Another) in which the scope of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act have been discussed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. The observation and the decision of the Supreme Court as mentioned in the judgment are as follows: "7. Thus it is very clear that SARFAESI Act is a self contained code enacted for a special purpose and therefore once a notice is issued under Section 13(2), it has to proceed in the same way as contemplated under the Act and any aggrieved person against the measures taken by the bank under Section 13(4) has to approach the DRT first and the DRAT later and he cannot maintain a Civil Suit for the measures taken by the bank under Section 13(4) of the Act. Therefore, it is to be held that Suit is also specifically excluded from the purview of the Civil Court6s for the action taken or to be taken by the bank under Section 13(4) of the Act. 12. In Transcore v. Union of India, 2006 (5) CTC 753 (cited super), the Honble Supreme Court held that Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act gives an overriding effect to that Act with all other laws and of such other laws are inconsistent with the SARFAESI Act. 12. In Transcore v. Union of India, 2006 (5) CTC 753 (cited super), the Honble Supreme Court held that Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act gives an overriding effect to that Act with all other laws and of such other laws are inconsistent with the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court further observed that the very object of Section 13 of SARFAESI Act is recovery by non-adjudicatory process and it is for this reason that Section 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act proceeds on the basis that security interest needs to be enforced expeditiously without the intervention of the Court/Tribunal. The SARFAESI Act states that enforcement would take place by non-adjudicatory process and the Act removes all fetters on the rights of the secured creditors." 7. As per Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the first respondent issued notice to the debtors on 010. 2002, of course, after the passing of decree in the suit. The relevant portion of the notice reads thus: "This Notice is to be treated as Notice in writing pursuant to the Provisions of Sub-Section 2 of Section 13 of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance 2002, notifying you that you have made default in the repayment of secured debt, that your account in respect of such secured debt has been classified as Non-performing Asset and requiring you to discharge in full your liabilities to the bank within 60 days from the date of this Notice. If you fail to comply with this notice, the Bank shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under Sub-Section 4(a)(b)(c)(d) of Section 13 of the ordinance including inter alia the right to take possession of the Secured Assets and the right to take possession of the Secured Assets by way of lease, assignment or sale and realise the secured assets." 8. As per the said provision, the secured creditor conveys his intention to the debtors or guarantors that in default to comply with the notice, he would get right to take possession of the secured assets. That right flows from Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The provisions contained in SARFAESI Act formulate a separate Scheme enabling the secured creditor to realise the loan from the borrowers without reference to an intervention of the Civil Court. That right flows from Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The provisions contained in SARFAESI Act formulate a separate Scheme enabling the secured creditor to realise the loan from the borrowers without reference to an intervention of the Civil Court. After exhausting the right under Section 13, in case, if the default continues on the part of the borrowers, the secured creditor shall switch over to avail the remedy specifically provided in Section 14 of the Act which goes thus: "14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.-(1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him- .(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and .(b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor. .(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. .(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any Court or before any authority." 9. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is true that notice under Section 13(2) has been issued and the next stage is for the District Magistrate to take further steps in accordance with the provisions. Nothing in the SARFAESI Act would empower the secured creditor to avail remedy before the Civil Court. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is true that notice under Section 13(2) has been issued and the next stage is for the District Magistrate to take further steps in accordance with the provisions. Nothing in the SARFAESI Act would empower the secured creditor to avail remedy before the Civil Court. The proceedings initiated before the Civil Court by the secured creditor must be in accordance with the procedure and if any procedure is contravened, then the Court shall direct the secured creditor to observe such procedure and after hearing the parties, it has to pass orders affording sufficient opportunities to both sides. 10. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act does not provide for notice to the borrower while he takes steps under the said Act. But, it does not mean that before the Civil Court in the proceedings going consequent upon the passing of preliminary decree in an administration suit also, he may get the order without notice to the concerned parties, who are all on the record. In the considered view of this Court, the order challenged before this Court is vitiated on account of the non-issuance of notice to the petitioner and others interested in the transactions. The Trial Court has to act in accordance with the terms of the preliminary decree passed in the administration suit. There is no impediment for the secured creditor to proceed as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act. 11. In the light of the observations contained in the foregoing paragraphs, it is held that notice is essential for the parties interested who are on record in the suit and in such view of this Court, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded back to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh disposal on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunities to both sides. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with the above said directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition and Civil Miscellaneous Petition are closed. No costs.