JUDGMENT Mr. A.K. Sikri, C.J. (Oral) - In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners challenge the validity of possession notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was served upon the petitioners by the respondent/Oriental Bank of Commerce. In the said notice, the Oriental Bank of Commerce seeks to take possession of property area 0B-7b-6b (approximately 912 sq. yards) comprised in Khasra No. 244, Khata No. 264/276, jamabandi of the year 1991-1992, vakia Tarf Sekhowal, situated at Heera Nagar, adjoining Holy Path Sr. Secondary School, Kakowal Road, Ludhiana. In the notice, it is alleged that this property is owned by Sh. Sushil Kumar son of Sh. Sant Lal and Smt. Anju Bala wife of Sh. Sushil Kumar. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that the petitioners had never approached the bank for taking any loan and had never mortgaged the property. Original sale deeds are still with them. It is stated that some fraud has been played with the bank, as somebody else representing themselves as Sushil Kumar and Anju Bala have taken the loan. It is also mentioned that FIR, in this behalf, has already been registered on 28.10.2012, in which, investigation is going on. However, without awaiting the outcome of the said investigation, the respondent bank has taken precipitating action by issuing the impugned possession notice. 3. At the time of arguments, it could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that remedy of filing the appeal under Section 17 of the Act is available to the petitioners. If the petitioners are correct in their assertions, then the outcome of that would be that as if no such property was mortgaged at all and the result of that would be that the bank could not take action under Section 13 of the Act, which is permissible only qua mortgaged properties. 4. In these circumstances, when the petitioners are aggrieved by the possession notice, the aforesaid remedy is available to them. Moreover, the matter involves disputed questions of fact, which can be thrashed out only by leading evidence. For this reason also, the proceedings before the DRT would be more apposite. 4. In these circumstances, when the petitioners are aggrieved by the possession notice, the aforesaid remedy is available to them. Moreover, the matter involves disputed questions of fact, which can be thrashed out only by leading evidence. For this reason also, the proceedings before the DRT would be more apposite. For these reasons, we are not entertaining this petition and relegating the petitioners to the alternate statutory remedy available in law. However, giving liberty to the petitioners to move the DRT within a period of 15 days from today, we stay the action of the respondent in taking possession of the property pursuant to possession notice dated 21.11.2012 for a period of three weeks from today. However, it would be for the DRT to pass any appropriate orders in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in this order.