Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the Sale Notice, dated 22.05.2013, issued by the 1st Respondent and to direct the 1st Respondent to set aside the sale, held on 28.06.2013, in favour of the 3rd Respondent. 2. It has been stated, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the property, in R.S.No.412/11, Munjirai Village, belonged to one Muthusamy Nadar, the grand-father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner, namely, Arulsamy, is the only son of the said Muthusamy Nadar. After the death of the petitioner's grand-father, the petitioner's father, the petitioner, the second respondent herein and the petitioner's sister, Sarala, are entitled to 1/4th share in the said property. While so, the first respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner relating to the money borrowed by the petitioner's father, Arulsamy, and the second respondent. 3. It has also been stated that the petitioner had filed a suit for partition, in respect of the property in question, in O.S.No.553 of 2004, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kulithurai. The first and the second respondents in the present writ petition are defendants in the said suit. The said suit had been dismissed, on 22.03.2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, before the Sub-Court, Kulithurai, in A.S.No.55 of 2013 and the said appeal is pending disposal by the said Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had stated that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India v. Sathyawathi Tondon, ( (2010) 8 SCC 110 ) and it is for the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, to seek his relief, if any, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 5. 5. In view of the submissions, made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the first respondent and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in United Bank of India v. Sathyawathi Tondon, ( (2010) 8 SCC 110 ), we are of the considered view that the present Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. 6. It is also noted that, in a recent decision, in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another vs. Sri Ikbal and others, (2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC), the Supreme Court had reiterated its stand that, where a statute provides an efficacious and adequate remedy, it would not be open to a party, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition. Hence, it stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that it would be open to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum, to seek his relief, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.