Judgment K. Kalyanasundaram, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.III, Chennai. 2. The petitioner had availed loan facilities from the first respondent bank and on default in repayment of the loan amount, the bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'). The petitioner laid an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.III, Chennai, in S.A.No.329 of 2013, challenging the sale notice, issued by the first respondent bank, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In the application moved by the petitioner for stay, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, had passed a conditional order, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the claim made by the bank. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Pandurangan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent bank. 4. It is noted that as per Section 18 of the of the SARFAESI Act, any person, aggrieved by the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, has to file only appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. As such, the order under challenge in this writ petition, is an appealable one. When an effective alternative remedy is provided, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order in the writ petition. In such view of the matter, we find it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.