JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 05.08.2008 passed by Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi (in short to be referred as “the DRT, Ranchi”), whereby an application filed under Section 22 (2) (h) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the respondent no.2 in R.P. Case no. 02 of 2002 has been directed to be treated as an appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Recovery Certificate was passed ex parte by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in O.A. no. 58 of 1998 against the petitioner and in favour of respondent no.1 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.14,84,283.39/- and thereafter, recovery proceeding was initiated vide R.P. 21 of 1998 (re-numbered as R.P. 02 of 2002) in which a land measuring 1.46 ½ acres was sold in auction sale to the respondent no.3 at Rs.23,90,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner made an objection to the auction sale by an application dated 05.10.2006 alleging that the property other than the mortgaged property has been sold in auction and the petitioner is not being allowed for in-grace or out-grace to the remaining portion of his land. The said application was rejected on 28.05.2008 by the respondent no.2 holding inter alia that similar petitions have been rejected several times by the executing court and as such, the said court is not competent to reconsider. It was further held by the respondent no.2 that so far dispute about in-grace and out-grace in the property is concerned, it is a civil dispute and the same is already pending before the Revenue (Civil) Court of DM (Ramgarh). Against the said order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the respondent no.2, the petitioner filed application before the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ranchi. However, the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ranchi vide order date 05.08.2008 held that said application should be treated as an appeal subject to payment of requisite Tribunal fee and the registry of DRT was also directed to do the needful. The said order dated 05.08.2008 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. However, the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ranchi vide order date 05.08.2008 held that said application should be treated as an appeal subject to payment of requisite Tribunal fee and the registry of DRT was also directed to do the needful. The said order dated 05.08.2008 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 05.08.2008 submits that he has not challenged the proclamation of sale and as such, the authority has no jurisdiction to reject the petitioner’s application on the ground that requisite court fee has not been filed under Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1993”). Though, the Tribunal has ordered for recovery of Rs. Rs.14,84,283.39/-, the entire money has already been collected through auction sale and the property has also been handed over to the respondent no.1. The petitioner has filed the present application under the provisions of Section 22 (2) (h) of the Act as a miscellaneous petition and the same should have been entertained by the DRT, Ranchi. It is also submitted that since the petitioner has not filed any regular appeal as such, the application is not covered by Section 30 of the Act and, therefore, Rule 7 of the Rules, 1993 will also not be applicable in the facts of the case. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner under Section 22 (2) (h) of the Act is not maintainable against the order passed by the Recovery Officer. In fact, the petitioner was required to file a regular appeal under Section 30 of the Act. It is also submitted that the objection regarding the boundary, measurement, approach road etc. was also rejected vide orders dated 03.09.1999 and 27.10.1999 passed by the Recovery Officer. The entire sale proceed has rightly been handed over as certificate amount since the Recovery Certificate was already issued as back as on 06.11.1998. Accordingly, the entire sale proceed was realizable and adjustable in the account. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 also submits that the impugned order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the D.R.T., Ranchi is perfectly justified and same needs no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the entire sale proceed was realizable and adjustable in the account. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 also submits that the impugned order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the D.R.T., Ranchi is perfectly justified and same needs no interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record and the laws applicable in this regard, it appears that admittedly, the petitioner challenged the order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the Recovery Officer before the DRT, Ranchi. Under the said factual background, the provisions of the Act and the Rules are required to be considered. 7. Section 30 of the Act reads as under:- “30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. (2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such enquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under Sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).” 8. On plain reading of Section 30 of the Act, it would be evident that any order of the Recovery Officer made under the Act is appealable under Section 30 of the Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is interlocutory in nature and therefore, he was not required to file any regular appeal under Section 30 of the Act rather his petition filed under Section 22 (2) (h) of the Act is maintainable, has no force. For better appreciation, Sections 22 and 22 (2)(h) are quoted herein below. “22. For better appreciation, Sections 22 and 22 (2)(h) are quoted herein below. “22. Procedure and powers of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal- (1) The tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate their own procedure including the places at which they shall have their sittings. (2) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) ……………… (b)………………. (c)………………. (d)……………… (e)………………. (f)………………. (g)……………… (h) any other matter which may be prescribed. 9. Section 22 of the Act is not a substantive provision, rather the same is procedural in nature which explains the procedure and powers of the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. Section 22 (2) (h) merely prescribes that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of discharging their functions under the Act shall have same powers as vested in the Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in respect of any matter, which may be prescribed. On consideration of the provision of Section 22 (2) (h) of the Act, I am of the view that the petitioner was not correct in taking recourse of Section 22(2)(h) of the Act in filing the application in question before the DRT, Ranchi, particularly in view of the existence of substantive provision for filing of appeal against any order of Recovery Officer. Consequently, the petitioner was also required to file an appropriate fee as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1993. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 05.08.2008 passed by learned DRT, Ranchi. 10. Consequently, the petitioner was also required to file an appropriate fee as prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1993. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 05.08.2008 passed by learned DRT, Ranchi. 10. It is further observed that if the petitioner files the requisite court fee, his application filed against the order dated 28.05.2008 by the Recovery Officer shall be entertained by the DRT, Ranchi on merit and the same shall be decided as expeditious as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of requisite court fee, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case, the record of this case is not traceable in DRT, Ranchi, the same shall be re-constructed with the help of the petitioner. 11. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed with aforesaid observations and directions.