Judgment S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. When the matter was taken up by this Court on 23.6.2014, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank made a representation before us, that the amount has been paid with regard to one property alone out of six properties mentioned in the impugned order and that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order in so far as 3 properties viz., item Nos.1, 2 and 5 and that the bids have already been received with regard to the said properties. 2. At this distance of time, by means of an order obtained with regard to one property, the petitioner is trying to stall further process which will prejudice the act of the Bank in recovering the money due to the Bank. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited the amount with regard to property Nos.2 and 5 which is the subject matter in WP Nos.16061 and 16062 of 2014 and that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, in so far as WP Nos.16061 and 16062 of 2014 are concerned, we are of the view that the petitioner will have to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, within the time stipulated under the 2002 Act. 4. With regard to the property which is the subject matter of WP No.16060 of 2014, the facts would disclose that in due compliance of the directions issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai in S.A.No.83 of 2014, on 20.3.2014, an amount of Rs.23,15,000/- was paid and the letter written by the respondent-Bank's Senior Manager on 20.3.2014, a copy of which is enclosed in the typed set of papers, would confirm the same. While-so, the respondent-Bank, by its auction notice dated 15.5.2014, has proposed to bring the property to auction on 25th and 26th June, 2014. 5. In view of the fact that the respondent-Bank has received the 30% of the outstanding viz., Rs.23,15,000/-, pending S.A.No.83 of 2014, the Bank ought not to have taken steps to prosecute the previous auction sale notice issued by them on 15.5.2014. Admittedly, the amount has been received by the respondent-Bank and the matter is also pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai. Admittedly, the amount has been received by the respondent-Bank and the matter is also pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the sale notice in so far as property concerned in W.P.No.16060 of 2014, and direct the parties viz., both the petitioner and the respondent-Bank to have their rights agitated in S.A.No.83 of 2014 (W.P.No.16060 of 2014) pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai. Generally writ petition against notice under Section 13(2) is not maintainable. In this case, the matter is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai. The petitioner has paid the money as admitted by the Bank for one property alone. Hence, the action of the respondent-Bank in trying to deprive the petitioner of that property is not correct and is also not justified. 6. In so far as WP Nos.16061 and 16062 of 2014 is concerned, as stated supra, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. By depositing within 4 weeks, 25% of the amount due as on date in respect of the amounts pertaining to property Nos.2 and 5, which is the subject matter of W.P.Nos.16061 and 16062 of 2014. The petitioner can approach the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or in any event, within 45 days as stipulated under the Act. We are not setting aside the sale notice dated 15.5.2014 with regard to the properties concerned in W.P.Nos.16061 and 16062 of 2014. In case the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of this Court, as above, by depositing the money of 25% due as on date to the Bank, the bids collected pursuant to the advertisement can be opened and the bank is entitled to proceed in accordance with law. It is made clear that in respect of the other properties viz., item Nos.3, 4 and 6 stated in the sale notice, the bank is at liberty to proceed with the auction and there is no adverse order in respect of the same and the learned counsel for the petitioner has no claim over the same. 7. Accordingly, WP No.16060 of 2014 is allowed. WP Nos.16061 and 16062 of 2014 stand disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.