ORDER 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the borrower (partnership firm) petitioner No.1 and its partner petitioner No.2 along with petitioner No.3, who happens to be a guarantor in respect of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20 Lakhs per annum for which hypothecation agreement was entered into by the petitioner firm on 23.12.2014 for operating expenses of Paper Trading business. 2. The property of the respondent No.3-guarantor was hypothecated to secure the said credit. 3. Due to default in repayment of interest the respondent Bank declared the cash credit account of petitioner as Non Performing Asset (“NPA” for brevity). Consequentially on 16.1.2019 vide Annexure P/4 notice u/s 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “SARFAESI Act”) was issued requiring the petitioner to discharge the liability to the secured creditor i.e. respondent Bank within 10 days, failing which respondent Bank shall be free to take recourse of clause (4) of section 13 of SARFAESI Act. The petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure P/9 denying the default and also the rate of interest charged. However, it is contended by the petitioner that without considering the objections raised by the petitioner the respondent Bank filed an application u/s. 14 before District Magistrate Gwalior requesting for taking possession of the secured assets. In response to the notice issued by the District Magistrate Gwalior the petitioner submitted his objection vide Annexure P/12 questioning the very validity of the decision of the respondent-Bank to declare the account as NPA and also raising certain disputed questions of fact in regard to the quantum and justification of interest rate. It is further contention of the petitioner that an application for settlement was also filed expressing willingness to settle the matter vide Annexure P/3. It is however submitted that Bank did not respond to the offer. Thereafter it is submitted that due to first wave of Covid-19 pandemic the matter was in a limbo which culminated into issuance of impugned order u/s.14 of SARFAESI Act dated 26.11.2020 vide Annexure P/1 directing Tahsildar Dabra to ensure handing over of possession of the secured assets to the Bank. It is lastly submitted that the objection to the aforesaid impugned order preferred by the petitioner was also wrongly rejected on 31.8.2021 vide Annexure P/16. 4. It is lastly submitted that the objection to the aforesaid impugned order preferred by the petitioner was also wrongly rejected on 31.8.2021 vide Annexure P/16. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since after passing of the order u/s. 14 of SARFAESI Act the physical possession of secured assets has not been taken, the remedy of appeal u/s. 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is not available to the petitioners and thus they have rightly invoke the power of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution. 5. The issue as to the availability of alternative statutory remedy u/s. 17 against an order u/s. 14 is no more res integra in view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Nobel Kumar and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 620 . The apex Court in the said case of Standard Chartered Bank has inter alia held in para 37 thus :- "37. ...........The grievance of the respondent that it will be left with no remedy is, therefore, misplaced. As held by a Bench of three Judges in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 , it would be open to the borrower to file an appeal under section 17 any time after the measures are taken under section 13(4) and before the date of sale / auction RP.177/2015 of the property. The same would apply if the secured creditor resorts to section 14 and takes possession of the property with the held of the officer appointed by the Magistrate." 6. Moreso the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Shrivastava v. Additional District Magistrate (South) Bhopal and others, W.P.No.5629/2021 decided on 1.4.2021 [Published in 2021 (2) JLJ 460] at Principal Seat Jabalpur has dismissed the petition involving similar issue by laying down the following law: “(i) Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation Act permits the secured creditor to take recourse to the measures prescribed therein to recover the secured debt. One such measure is to take possession of the secured asset. Section 14 of the Act gives remedy to the secured creditor to obtain possession of the secured asset by approaching the District Magistrate. Hence, the action of the District Magistrate under section 14 is in furtherance of the provision contained under section 13 (4) of the Act. One such measure is to take possession of the secured asset. Section 14 of the Act gives remedy to the secured creditor to obtain possession of the secured asset by approaching the District Magistrate. Hence, the action of the District Magistrate under section 14 is in furtherance of the provision contained under section 13 (4) of the Act. Such an action is after the stage of section 13 (4), therefore, remedy of appeal under section 17 is available against the order under section 14 of the Act. (ii) The bar contained in section 14 (3) of the Act does not affect the remedy before the Tribunal under section 17 of the Act.” 7. This Court after having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and having gone through the decision in the case of Madan Mohan Shrivastava (supra) sees no reason to take a different view herein than the one taken by learned Single Judge in Madan Mohan Shrivastava (supra). 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised another issue that in the absence of actual possession of the secured asset having not been taken, the remedy u/s. 17 of Appeal before DRT against an order u/s.14 is not available. 8.1 In this regard, it is seen from the scheme of SARFAESI Act that section.14 is one of the means available to the secured creditor to take possession of the secured assets, and therefore, this means of taking possession provided u/s. 14 is one of the modes available to recover his secured debts as laid down in section 13 (4). Thus, the mode provided u/s. 14 is a specie of the genus which is section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act. 8.3 It is further well settled that jurisdiction u/s. 14 available to the District Magistrate is non adjudicatory. The jurisdiction in fact is executory in nature. 8.4 If a right is given to the borrower to prefer an appeal against the order u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act before possession of secured asset is handed over to the secured creditor then a new remedy not contemplated by law would become available to the borrower. Moreso the object of the SARFAESI Act of expeditious enforcement of security in the face of umpteen non-performing assets suffered by the bank, would stand defeated. Moreso the object of the SARFAESI Act of expeditious enforcement of security in the face of umpteen non-performing assets suffered by the bank, would stand defeated. Public money which is blocked in the shape of non-performing assets needs to be recovered by way of expeditious and simple procedure provided under the SARFAESI Act. Thus, by allowing borrowers to invoke section.17 before possession of secured asset is taken would run contrary to the very object behind the SARFAESI Act. 9. In the conspectus of above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that the petitioner can very well avail the remedy of appeal u/s. 17 before the DRT which if filed within a period of 40 days from today against impugned order dated 26.11.2020 Annexure P/1 herein passed by Collector, District Gwalior then the same shall be entertained and decided by the DRT on its own merits without being dismissed on limitation alone. 10. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.