Abhay Manohar Sapre, C.J.—By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (3 in number), by name, 1) M/S. Tinsukia Tea Trading Company, 2) M/S. Goipani Tea Company and 3) M/S. Goipani Tea Garden, seeks to challenge the notice dated 16.04.2005 issued by the respondent-Bank u/s 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Annexure-13) and also seeks to challenge attachment notice dated 03.02.2006 (Annexure-14) for sale of the following four properties: (1) Dag No. 4958 (Part) & Patta No. 1114 Town sheet No. 12 measuring 2K 8.61L (7000 sq. ft.) in the name of Bipin Chetia. (2) Dag No. 145/146 Patta No. 88 Tinsukia Mouza in the name of Binit Chetia, measuring 7B 1K 18L. (3) Dag No. 4958 (Part) & Patta No. 1114 Town sheet No. 12 measuring 1K 16.8L (493 sq. mt.) in the name of Binit Chetia. (4) Land at Bogdung Mouza (Ujuni Muria Kacharigaon) measuring 1B (13.38 centi acre) under PP No. 93 Dag No. 337/338 in the name of Diganta Chetia S/o Jatin Chetia. as published in Assam Tribune dated 09.02.2006 (Annexure-15). 2. We need not burden our order by narrating the facts in detail because it was not disputed that the respondent Bank has already filed two OAs being O.A. No. 117/2011 and 118/2011 against the petitioners and perhaps against some more persons for realization of their dues before the DRT at Guwahati and both these OAs are pending. 3. In a situation like the one where parties are already litigating for adjudication of their grievance in a tribunal constituted under the Act, namely, DRT at Guwahati, in relation to the subject matter of this writ petition, then we do not consider this to be a fit case for adjudicating the grievances raised by the parties on merits in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is a settled principle of law that parties cannot be allowed to prosecute two simultaneous remedies in two different forums and in case if it is found that parties are litigating for the same cause before a competent court of law, as in this case, the statutory Tribunal, then a writ petition under Article 226 being an extraordinary remedy available under the Constitution cannot be allowed to be prosecuted at the instance of either party. 5. 5. In this case, what is being argued is essentially a matter pertaining to the facts such as petitioner did not take any loan from the Bank or/and the loan was not sanctioned nor disbursed to them etc. We are afraid, we can embark on such issues in a writ petition and more so when the parties are litigating on facts before the Tribunal in respect of the same issues. 6. We, therefore, decline to entertain this petition though pending for long time and permit the parties to litigate and raise their grievances before the Tribunal in the two OAs referred above by filing written statements and documents in respect of their contentions. 7. Needless to observe, the Tribunal shall decide the matter in accordance with law after taking into account the stand taken by all parties on facts and in law. If any decision is rendered against any party, the aggrieved party has a right of appeal u/s 17 of the Act to raise his grievance. 8. It is with these observations and liberty, we dispose of this writ petition without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the controversy involved which in the light of the liberty granted to the parties is not considered necessary. 9. No cost.