JUDGMENT : MD. MUMTAZ KHAN, J. 1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/company assailing the order dated October 17, 2017 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with MISCS 97655 of 2016/Regd. Misc 82 of 2016 whereby petitioner's prayer for stay of the operation of the order dated March 30, 2017 was rejected by the learned court below. The fact leading to the instant revision is that O.P. No. 4, State Bank of India through its authorized officer, filed an application under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act, 2002) on July 12, 2016 against M/s. E.C. Bose and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, Sri Partha Sadhan Bose and Deborshi Sadhan Bose (borrower/guarantor) for taking possession of land with five storied commercial building lying and situated at 13A St. George Terrace, P.S. Hastings, Kolkata-22 for making default in payment of cash credit loan amounting to rupees six crore fifty lacs which was allowed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated March 30, 2017. Thereafter on September 14, 2017 this petitioner filed an application praying for stay of the operation of the order passed on March 30, 2017 taking the plea that the petitioner is in possession of the same and there is an ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Judge VIIth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1470 of 2016 on 11th November 2016 restraining the opposite parties from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in the said premises but the same was rejected by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by the impugned order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same this petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision challenging the impropriety of the said order. 2. It was submitted by Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, that this petitioner/company through its director Chandan Bose filed a Title Suit being No. 1470 of 2016 against M/s. E.C. Bose and Co. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same this petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision challenging the impropriety of the said order. 2. It was submitted by Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, that this petitioner/company through its director Chandan Bose filed a Title Suit being No. 1470 of 2016 against M/s. E.C. Bose and Co. Pvt. Ltd. as also the present opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and got an ad interim order of injunction on November 11, 2016 whereby opposite parties/defendants were restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of this present petitioner in the suit property for a period of 3 weeks which was extended from time to time. It was also submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that the defendants/bank appeared in the said suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is yet to be disposed of. Mr. Bhattacharya further submitted that the said interim order of injunction was extended even after appearance of the defendant/bank and in their presence but inspite of their knowledge of the order of injunction, Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, State Bank of India, Mr. Abhijit Naskar, filed an affidavit on February 22, 2017 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta falsely stating that there was no order of stay from any court of law with regard to the mortgaged property of M/s. E.C. Bose and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate being in dark about the existence of the aforesaid ad interim order of injunction allowed the application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking over possession of the suit premises. According to Mr. Bhattacharya that order was obtained by practicing fraud upon the court and for this reason the said order should be recalled. He further submits that inspite of drawing the attention of the court, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed the impugned order dismissing the application for stay. He also submitted that against the order impugned a petition for modification/recalling had also been filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 3. Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh, learned advocate appearing for the State Bank of India while drawing attention of this court to the cause title of the suit in question submitted that the said Title Suit was filed by Mrs. 3. Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh, learned advocate appearing for the State Bank of India while drawing attention of this court to the cause title of the suit in question submitted that the said Title Suit was filed by Mrs. Chandra Bose, the director of this petitioner company who is none other but the wife of the defaulter/borrower company M/s. E.C. Bose and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and it is a collusive suit filed by the petitioner only to deprive the bank from realisation of the loan amount. Mr. Singh, also submitted that at nowhere in the plaint this petitioner has claimed any tenancy right over the suit property nor prayed for any declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property and drawing this Court's attention to the paragraph 4 of the plaint (Annexure A to the instant revisional application) submitted that petitioner has merely claimed enjoyment of the office space and other facilities by way of common arrangement and nothing more. Mr. Singh while drawing attention towards paragraph 5, 6 and 7 of the plaint also submitted that petitioner was well aware about the loan and the premises in question as a security against loan. He also submitted that learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate taking into account the entire facts and circumstances rejected the prayer for stay and there was no illegality or impropriety in the same. He further submitted that even the petitioner's prayer for modification of the impugned order was rejected on November 6, 2017 and till date the said modification order has not been challenged and accordingly by virtue of the subsequent event the revisional application has become infructuous. He further submitted that the order impugned was passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and sub Clause 3 of section 14 of that Act specifically debars from questioning the act of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate done in pursuance of section 14 in any court or before any authority. According to Mr. Singh the only remedy available to the petitioner was under section 17 of that Act. He also submitted that possession of the premises in question has already been taken over in the morning of November 7, 2011 and for this reason also this revision becomes infructuous. This was, however, disputed and denied by Learned Advocate for the petitioner and submitted that premises is possession of the petitioner. 4. Mr. He also submitted that possession of the premises in question has already been taken over in the morning of November 7, 2011 and for this reason also this revision becomes infructuous. This was, however, disputed and denied by Learned Advocate for the petitioner and submitted that premises is possession of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Singh relied upon the decision in the matter of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 2 SCC 782 . 5. Mr. Ayan Basu, learned advocate appearing for the O.P. No. 1, State of West Bengal, also submitted that order was passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the said order is an appealable order and the remedy lies only before the Debt Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction as provided under section 17 of the SARSAESI Act. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited on behalf of the O.P. No. 2-4. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and gone through the impugned order and the documents annexed and produced by the parties. 7. Admittedly on the basis of the application of the O.P. No. 4/State Bank of India under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta passed the order dated March 30, 2017 granting liberty to the petitioner to take possession of the suit property in question. Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act specifically provides that no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate done in pursuance of the section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. Sub-section 4 of section 13 of the SARFAESI Act has given right to the secured creditors to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower if the borrower failed to discharge his liability and taking recourse to the same creditor/bank filed an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which was allowed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Sub-section 4 of section 13 of the SARFAESI Act has given right to the secured creditors to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower if the borrower failed to discharge his liability and taking recourse to the same creditor/bank filed an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act which was allowed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act specifically provides that any person (including the borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section 4 of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act may make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measures had been taken. 8. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev (supra) that an action under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of section 13(4), and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of section 17(1) of the Act and the Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an action under section 13(4) of the Act by providing for an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 9. With regard to the allegation of practicing fraud it appears from the impugned order that the same has duly been dealt with by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta while rejecting the prayer for stay of the operation of the order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and even the prayer of the petitioner for modification of the order was rejected by the court below on November 6, 2017 and the same is not under challenge before this court. Be that as it may, it is well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. 10. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the instant revisional application is dismissed. 10. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the instant revisional application is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to the costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.