JUDGMENT K. Kalyanasundaram J. 1. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order made in I.A.No.33 of 2014 in O.A.No.236 of 2013 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai, and for a direction to the first respondent to extend the time for payment of arrears of amount of Rs.30,00,800/- by 12 weeks. 2. The petitioners had availed loan facilities from the respondent bank. The loan was granted on the basis of a lease agreement entered into between the petitioners and the third respondent in respect of the property belonging to the second petitioner. Due to the default in repayment of the loan amount, the second respondent bank had filed an application in O.A.No.236 of 2013, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, to recover the loan amount. The respondent bank also obtained an order dated 28.11.2013 restraining the petitioners from taking over possession of the property from the third respondent in I.A.No.548 of 2013. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application in I.A.No.599 of 2013 to vacate the order dated 28.11.2013. The Tribunal by its order dated 30.12.2013 suspended the order made in I.A.No.548 of 2013, till 31.1.2014 subject to the payment of arrears of Rs.30,00,800/- on or before 31.1.2014. Admittedly, the petitioners did not comply the condition and moved another application in I.A.No.33 of 2014 seeking extension of time of three months to comply the order dated 30.12.2013. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 30.1.2014 extended the time till 10.2.2014. Challenging the order, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bank having provided the loan facilities against the lease rental income cannot classify mechanically the account as non performing assets due to the temporary default in payment of the installments and the Tribunal ought to have granted sufficient time to comply the order dated 30.12.2013. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the records. 5. It is noted that the Tribunal had passed the order on 31.1.2014 granting time to the petitioners till 10.2.2014 to comply the order dated 30.12.2013. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the records. 5. It is noted that the Tribunal had passed the order on 31.1.2014 granting time to the petitioners till 10.2.2014 to comply the order dated 30.12.2013. If the petitioners needed further time, they should have approached the Tribunal seeking extension of time or they should have challenged the order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. We are of the view that the petitioners are having effective alternative remedy and they cannot file the writ petition invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bypassing the alternative remedy. The writ petition is not maintainable in law and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed. No costs.