ORDER 1. Petitioner, a corporate entity and also a loanee, is before this Court with the grievance that despite revised proposal for One Time Settlement (for brevity 'OTS') pending consideration before the respondent/Punjab & Sind Bank vide Annexure P-11 dated 14.9.2021 that respondents have initiated proceedings under section 13(2) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'SARFAESI Act') followed by possession notice dated 7.10.2021/P-12 and sale-notice dated 21.10.2021/P-13. Therefore, until & unless the respondents/Bank finalizes the revised notice proposal, no such proceedings could be initiated under SARFAESI Act. 2. Upon careful perusal of the documents referred to, it appears that alleged revised proposal is dated 14.09.2021 whereas the proceedings under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act were already initiated on 16.12.2020. Hence, the factual adumbration during course of arguments is not fully correct. 3. Be that as it may. 4. It is the settled law that proceedings once initiated under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India refrains itself from interfering in the pending proceedings as there is an alternative, expeditious and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner by way of an appeal under section 17 of SARFAESI Act. 5. The nature of jurisdiction of the DRT as an appellate forum is wide and therefore the DRT is competent to address on all contentions advanced on facts and in law related to the advancement of loan, alleged rights emanating from proposals for OTS under the banking regulations and guidelines in addition to justifiability of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. As such, this Court refrains from commenting upon merits of the contentions advanced in context of revised OTS proposals. 6. Consequently, present Writ Petition is disposed of with the following observation that in case an appeal is preferred within two weeks, the Appellate Authority shall dwell upon the appeal and the interim application, if any, in accordance with law regard being had to the merits of the case presented. 7. At this stage, Shri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, submits that the DRT at Allahabad is not functioning and therefore forum is not available. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, as held in other cases, the petitioner is set at liberty to approach the DRAT for allocation of the appeal before a co-ordinate DRT functioning. 7. At this stage, Shri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, submits that the DRT at Allahabad is not functioning and therefore forum is not available. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, as held in other cases, the petitioner is set at liberty to approach the DRAT for allocation of the appeal before a co-ordinate DRT functioning. If such prayer is made, DRAT is directed to ensure that the appeal so filed is made over to a functioning DRT with the co-ordinate jurisdiction. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.