Judgment S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. The case of the petitioners is that, being a third party, they have purchased the property during the subsistence of the mortgage. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing petitioners in view of the decision of this Court in P.Valmoorthy vs. Authorised Officer, United Bank of India {2010 (1) C.L.T. 158}, there is no need for payment of Court fee. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved against the orders in S.A.Nos.314 and 315 of 2012 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and the Tribunal has passed an order on 12.2.2013. Against that impugned orders, the petitioners preferred an appeal in R.A.(S.A.) Nos.51 and 52 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Madras. 4. The Tribunal insisted that the petitioners should pay the Court fee and also file a waiver application. The case of the petitioners is that there is no need for payment of Court fee as they are the third parties and in view of the decision cited supra and the proposition laid down in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said decision, the petitioners are exempted from payment of Court fee. The petitioners also filed a petition under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with 19 (25) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the RDDB&FI Act, 1993, to set aside the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.Nos.314 and 315 of 2012 dated 12.2.2013 and to hear the appeal on merits. The Appellate Tribunal instead of entertaining the petitions, refused to receive the same. The petitioners were forced to send the applications by Registered Post and the same were again returned by post to the petitioners. 5. Mr. F.B. Benjamin George, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submitted that the petitioners have purchased the property during the subsistence of mortgage and they have also undertaken to clear the dues to the Bank and hence they stepped into the shoes of the borrower and they ought to have paid the money as demanded by the Bank. That apart, the petitioners have got a remedy before the Tribunal and he should have approached the Tribunal. 6. That apart, the petitioners have got a remedy before the Tribunal and he should have approached the Tribunal. 6. Despite the fact that he is not aware of the petition being sent to the Tribunal after its original that was presented to the Appellate Tribunal, which was filed under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, read with Section 19 (25) RDDB&FI Act, we find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Tribunal is bound to maintain the applications and decide the matter in the light of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, cited supra, and pass an order on merits and in accordance with law and after hearing all the parties. It is made clear that even though the petitioners have sought for a larger prayer, we are not inclined to grant such prayer and the applications will have to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal on merits by entertaining the same. Hence, the petitioners are directed to re-submit the applications viz., S.R. (D) Nos.420 and 421 dated 21.4.2014 before the Appellate Tribunal, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the said applications viz., on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned. 7. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.