Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. A perusal of the auction notification, dated 03.03.2014, would reveal that certain issues had arisen, relating to the action initiated by the respondent bank concerned, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent had borrowed certain amounts from the petitioner and he had failed to repay the same. Though he had filed a civil suit against the third respondent in O.S.No.211 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Theni and obtained a decree also in his favour in respect of the property belonging to the third respondent, he could not execute the said decree for the reason that the third respondent had mortgaged the property in question with the respondent Bank. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent Bank, after realizing the amount in question, may be directed to settle the amount due to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Writ Petition is not at all maintainable. More over, though sale notification was issued for the property in question and the same was brought for sale, since there were no bidders, the sale could not take place, as scheduled and therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Before dealing with this case, it is worthwhile to refer the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition, which is as follows:- “Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to deposit the balance amount after adjusting their dues in O.S.No.211/2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Theni, on completion of auction proceedings.” 5. On the face of it, we are of the considered view that the prayer of the Writ Petitioner is not at all maintainable. The prayer in this Writ Petition is an innocuous prayer. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , has made it clear that the scope of interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited in nature. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , has made it clear that the scope of interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited in nature. It has also made it clear that the statutory schemes provided under the specific enactments should not be defeated by the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. As such, the alternative remedies provided to the petitioner, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ought not to be interfered with, by this Court, by invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has reiterated the said position of law in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-op. Bank Ltd. V. Sri Ikbal, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC). 6. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law to recover the amount in question and this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.