ORDER 1. The present revision has been filed by the Punjab National Bank and two others being aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2018 passed by the learned XI Addl. District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit ie., C.S.No. 5A/2017. The learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the Bank under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Facts of the case reveal that the applicant Bank has taken action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Bank has sold the land bearing Municipal No. 4141/1/K MIN-3 Part 06 and bearing No. 4141/1/K MIN-2 Part 07, situated in residential colony of Ujjain known as 'Sethi Nagar'. The loan was obtained by the borrower by submitting original sale deed wherein it was categorically mentioned that it is a freehold land and also a diverted land. Undisputed facts also reveal that the suit property is in Sethi Nagar which is within the Municipal limit of Ujjain. The contention of the Bank is that the entire land is within the Municipal limits of Ujjain and under the Master Plan the question of diversion does not arise. It has been further stated that e-Auction Notice was published on 20.9.2016 and the suit properties were sold on 'As is where is Basis'. It has been further stated that the respondent was under an obligation to verify and get himself satisfied about the property, however, with open eyes he participated in the process of auction and deposited 25% of the purchase price being successful bidder. The sale was confirmed vide letter dated 27.10.2016 and in the letter issued by the Bank it was specifically mentioned that in case the non-applicant does not deposit the balance 75% of the purchase price ie., Rs. 1,20,75,000/- within 15 days, the 25% amount shall be forfeited. Undisputedly, the remaining amount was not deposited within 15 days and on 7.11.2016 a prayer was made by the respondent before this Court, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court, for extension of time and 45 days instead of 15 days, was prayed. The undisputed facts also reveals that even after expiry of 45 days the entire amount was not paid and finally the Bank issued a letter informing the applicant that the Bank shall be forfeiting 25% amount deposited by the respondent. The undisputed facts also reveals that even after expiry of 45 days the entire amount was not paid and finally the Bank issued a letter informing the applicant that the Bank shall be forfeiting 25% amount deposited by the respondent. The respondents thereafter preferred a civil suit stating that the land which has been sold is not a diverted land and, therefore, he is entitled for refund of the entire amount. An application was preferred by the defendant Bank under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating that in case the auction purchaser is aggrieved in the matter, he does have a remedy to prefer an appeal under section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. However, the trial Court has rejected the application preferred under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. The relevant statutory provisions governing the field ie., section 17 of the Act of 2002 reads as under : 17. Right to appeal.- (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, 1[may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken [Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.] 3[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section. (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (3) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties, comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, and require restoration of the management of the secured assets to the borrower or restoration of possession of the secured assets to the borrower, it may by order, declare the recourse to any one or more measures referred to in-sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured assets as invalid and restore the possession of the secured assets to the borrower or restore the management of the secured assets to the borrower, as the case may be, and pass such order as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13. (4) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures specified under sub-section (4) of section l3 to recover his secured debt. (5) Any application made under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within sixty days from the date of such application: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, from time to time, extend the said period for reasons to be recorded in writing, so, however, that the total period of pendency of the application with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall not exceed four months from the date of making of such application made under sub-section (1). (6) If the application is not disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the period of four months as specified in sub-section (5), any party to the application may make an application, in such form as may be prescribed, to the Appellate Tribunal for directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, on such application, make an order for expeditious disposal of the pending application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. (7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of application in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and the rules made thereunder.] Section 34 of the Act of 2002 reads as under : 34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.-No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993). 4. Section 17 provides for a remedy of appeal and section 34 provides that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts has been specifically ousted to entertain the suit or to pass interim order in respect of those matters which, by virtue of section 17(1) of the Act of 2002, fall within the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 5. Mr. Assudani, learned counsel for the auction purchaser has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of K. Deenadayalan v. N. Sathish Kumar (C.R.P. (PD) No. 941 of 2011, decided on 18.12.2014). It was a case of fraudulent sale of a property by a person who has never mortgaged the property with the Bank and in those circumstances the suit was held to be maintainable, whereas, the present case is distinguishable on facts. The property was mortgaged with the Bank by the title holder by depositing the title deeds. It was a case of fraudulent sale of a property by a person who has never mortgaged the property with the Bank and in those circumstances the suit was held to be maintainable, whereas, the present case is distinguishable on facts. The property was mortgaged with the Bank by the title holder by depositing the title deeds. Description of the property and the contents of the property in the auction notice were as per the title deed. The property was sold on 'As is where is Basis' and the issue of diversion becomes irrelevant in case of a city where the master plan is in existence. The undisputed facts also reveals that the auction purchaser was not able to deposit the remaining amount within 15 days as per the terms and conditions of the sale letter. 6. In the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd., v. Union of India, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311 , the issue of alternative remedy has been dealt with in detail and the petitioner is certainly not at all remediless. He does have a remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act of 2002. 7. The apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Allwyn Alloys Pvt. Ltd., and others, reported in II (2018) BC 547 (SC), in paragraph 6 has held as under : 6. After having considered the rival submissions of the parities, we have no hesitation in acceding to the argument urged on behalf of the Bank that the mandate of section 13 and, in particular, section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the 2002 Act"), clearly bars filing of a civil suit. For, no civil Court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a DRT or DRAT is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction can be granted by any Court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. The fact that the stated flat is the subject matter of a registered sale deed executed by the respondents No. 5 and 6 (writ Petitioners) in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4 and which sale deed has been deposited with the Bank along with the share certificate and other documents for creating an equitable mortgage and the Bank has initiated action in that behalf under the 2002 Act, is indisputable. If so, the question of permitting the respondents No. 5 and 6 (writ Petitioners) to approach any other forum for adjudication of issues raised by them concerning the right, title and interest in relation to the said property, cannot be countenanced. The High Court has not analysed the efficacy of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the DRT and DRAT but opined that the same involved factual issues warranting production of evidence and a full-fledged trial. The approach of the High Court as already noted hitherto is completely fallacious and untenable in law. 8. The apex Court in the aforesaid case was also dealing with the issue of bar under section 34 and in the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the remedy available to the petitioner is certainly the remedy of appeal by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The civil suit is not at all maintainable and, therefore, an application preferred under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stands allowed. The civil suit is dismissed and the revision preferred by the Bank before this Court is allowed. No order as to costs.