Judgment :- 1. Since the application for condonation of delay of one day in filing of the appeal is made and the appeal is also heard for admission and no ground is made out to admit the appeal, the delay is condoned without unnecessary issuance of notice to the respondent and the application is accordingly allowed ex parte. 2. The Writ Appeal is preferred from the order dated 11/12/2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition of the appellant is dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act" for short). 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant had sought to challenge before this Court, the order dated 14/11/2012 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka, Bangalore, in S.A.No.297/12 wherein, by an elaborate order, dealing with the grounds taken by the appellant, the application was dismissed with costs. After dismissal of that application, explicitly made under the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the remedy for approaching the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the said Act was available. When such statutory remedy was available to the present appellant, the petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution was not required to be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 4. However, it was vehemently argued by learned counsel Sri. S.Nagaraju, that learned Single Judge was required to deal with the serious factual and legal grounds agitated in the petition and the petition of the appellant ought not to have been dismissed only on the ground of alternative remedy. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Mysore Urban Development Authority by its Commissioner V/s. Veer Kumar Jain and others (2010 (2) KCCR 1329). Learned counsel emphasized on the Head Notes of that judgment, suggesting that the power of the High Court under Article 226 would be exercised only to dispense justice and not to find fault here and there, and such power ought not to have been exercised in a mechanical manner, but to advance the cause of justice. Those Head Notes on the observations made in the body of the judgment, in the facts of that case hardly take the case of the appellant any further. Those Head Notes on the observations made in the body of the judgment, in the facts of that case hardly take the case of the appellant any further. 5. Learned counsel also relied upon another judgment of the Apex Court in L.K.Verma V/s. HMT Ltd., & another (2006) 2 SCC 269 ) to point out that, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in a given case, although may not entertain a writ petition, inter alia on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but that rule cannot be said to be of universal application. Despite existence of an alternative remedy, a writ court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review inter alia in cases where the Court or Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of the fundamental right or if there has been a violation of a principle of natural justice or where vires of the Act is in question. 6. The other judgment in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & others V/s. State of Maharashtra & others (2011) 2 SCC 782 ) relied upon for the appellant, has quoted therein paragraph 30 of earlier judgment of the Apex Court in City and Industrial Development Corpn. V/s. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala. It was on that basis submitted that, the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether adjudication of the writ jurisdiction involve complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; whether the petition reveals all material facts; whether the petition has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; whether the person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; whether the claim is ex facie barred by any law of limitation and whether grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. 7. In the facts of the aforesaid case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev supra, apart from the admittedly disputed questions of facts, an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was found to be available and therefore, having regard to the facts obtaining in the case, the High Court was held to be fully justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Thus, that case squarely covers the present matter, against the appellant. Thus, that case squarely covers the present matter, against the appellant. 8. Inspite of the above clear legal position found in the observations of the Apex Court, learned counsel emphasized on the observations made by the Apex Court in Bangalore Development Authority, by its Commissioner and others V/s. P.Anjanappa and others (ILR 2003 Kar 1471), which read as under: "It cannot be denied that Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of Justice, Law has to bend before Justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice, nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error." 9. The law being well settled on the issue, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. In absence of any provision for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 18 of the Act, no time limit or extension of period of limitation could be granted de hors, the express provisions of law, for filing the appeal, as prayed. Therefore, the prayers and the appeal are rejected with the clarification that if and when an appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, it may be dealt with in accordance with law.