Judgment :- Petitioners have made an application before the Court below in Misc.No.513/2005 for dismissing the said miscellaneous petition on the ground that the matter in dispute between the parties is pending consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and therefore the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. 2. The petitioners relied upon the provisions of Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) in support of their case. Section 34 of SARFAESI Act reads thus:- "34. Civil Court not have jurisdiction-No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)" It is also relevant to note the provisions of Section 31(1)(aa) of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ('SFC Act' for short). "31. Special provisions for enforcement of claims by Financial Corporation- (1) Where an industrial concern, in breach of any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation or where the Financial Corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate repayment of any loan or advance under section 30 and the industrial concern fails to make such repayment, then, without prejudice to the provisions of section 29 of this Act and of section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) any officer of the Financial Corporation, generally or specially authorized by the Board in this behalf, may apply to the district judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the industrial concern carries on the whole or a substantial part of its business for one or more of the following reliefs, namely:- (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx (aa) for enforcing the liability of any surety; or " 3. In the matter on hand, petitioner No.1 is the borrower as well as guarantor, whereas petitioner No.2 is the guarantor for the loan obtained by the first petitioner. Another person by name Mr. Venkateshan had given his immovable property as collateral security while raising the loan by the first respondent. The respondent-Corporation has initiated proceedings against Mr. Venkateshan, who offered the collateral security before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and is proceeding against the collateral security offered by Mr. Venkateshan. In the said matter, the petitioners are not parties. Only Mr. Venkateshan is party before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. The respondent-Corporation has chosen to proceed against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 31 of SFC Act, for enforcing the liability of the surety. There is no bar for proceeding against the surety under the provisions of Section 31(1)(aa) of the SFC Act. It is open for the respondent to proceed either under Section 31 of SFC Act or under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. In the matter on hand, the respondent has chosen to proceed against Mr. Venkateshan, who offered collateral security, under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, whereas the respondent is proceeding against the petitioners herein before the Civil Court under SFC Act. In both the matters, the properties secured are different and the guarantors are different. In this view of the matter, the Court below is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for stopping the proceeding before the Civil Court. Hence, no interference is called for. Writ petition fails and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.