ORDER : Petitioners, who are borrowers have approached this Court for quashing of the order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short DRT), on 16.03.2018, in S.A.No.245/2017, Annexure-A whereunder, petitioners prayer for quashing of proceedings initiated by the bank under Section 13(4) and Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called ‘SARFAESI Act’), came to be rejected by the DRT. 2. Heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner No.1 is carrying on business in hotel and had availed certain credit facilities from erstwhile M/s. Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited, in a sum of Rs.11.00 Crore. On account of said loan account being declared as ‘Non Performing Asset’ and Bank having assigned the debt by a ‘Deed of Assignment’, on 28.03.2014, in favour of respondent herein, the assignee issued a possession under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act claiming possession of the mortgaged property by filing a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the VI ACMM, Bengaluru, and obtained an order for taking possession of the premises. Being aggrieved by the said measure initiated by the Bank, petitioners filed a Special Application in S.A.No.245/2017 before DRT, assailing the very initiation of proceedings under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by respondent herein. As noticed hereby, the said application having been dismissed, petitioners are before this Court. 4. Undisputably, order under challenge is an appealable order under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), and without exhausting the alternate and efficacious remedy available under the Act, petitioners have knocked at the doors of this Court invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and at the threshold, it has to be held that petitions deserve to be dismissed as petitioners having not availed the available alternate remedy. 5. Be that as it may. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that petitioners are ready and willing to deposit 25% of the original claim made at the time of filing O.A. No.669/2017 or in other words, learned senior counsel submits that a sum of Rs.2.25 Crore would be deposited before respondent, if some breathing time is granted. 5. Be that as it may. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that petitioners are ready and willing to deposit 25% of the original claim made at the time of filing O.A. No.669/2017 or in other words, learned senior counsel submits that a sum of Rs.2.25 Crore would be deposited before respondent, if some breathing time is granted. Placing said submission on record, these writ petitions stands disposed of by the following order; Order (i) Petitioners are at liberty to question the order dated 16.03.2018, passed in S.A.No.245/2017, by DRTII, Karnataka, before jurisdictional DRAT, within four weeks from today and in the event of such an appeal being filed along with an application for stay, DRAT would be at liberty to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and necessarily after affording an opportunity to the respondent herein to file objections to said application and without reference to delay in view of the fact that petitioners herein have been pursuing their grievance before this Court by filing these Writ Petitions on 19.03.2018. (ii) If appeal is filed within four weeks from today, DRAT shall, without reference to delay, consider the appeal and application for stay on merits as ordered herein above. (iii) However, DRAT shall consider the said application subject to petitioners herein depositing the sum of Rs.2.25 Crore within four weeks from today.