ORDER : CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- " 1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No.1 may kindly be perpetually restrained from dispossessing humble petitioner from scheduled land. 2. That the respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to not to re-initiate the SARFAESI proceedings." 2. The facts, insofar as necessary for determination of the present controversy, are that the petitioner claims to have purchased an immovable property situated at Ward No. 14, in front of Karni Mata Mandir, Lunkaransar, admeasuring 65 × 33 ft. (2145 sq. ft.), through an unregistered agreement to sell dated 28.03.2014 (Annexure-1) executed by Pawan Kumar Bothra and Nemchand Bothra for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-, and asserted to be in both symbolic and physical possession thereof. Thereafter, upon certain alleged attempts of dispossession by the aforesaid vendors, the petitioner instituted a civil suit for injunction before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lunkaransar (hereinafter referred as "learned trial court") on 19.09.2018, wherein the learned Trial Court, by an ad-interim order dated 03.10.2018, directed the parties to maintain status quo of the land and record till further orders. Subsequently, on 06.02.2023 the respondent no.4-bank issued an e-auction notice (Annexure-4) inviting bids for the sale of residential plot, against which the petitioner, apprehending illegality, sent a legal notice dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure-5) mentioning therein not to initiate any legal proceedings as the ad-interim order dated 03.10.2018 is in operation. In reply to the aforementioned legal notice dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure-6) the respondent no. 4-bank asserted that the property mortgaged by Smt. Radha Devi is distinct from the petitioner’s alleged plot. Thereafter the auction proceeding were carried out and valid sale certificate dated 13.04.2023 was issued in favour of the auction purchaser. The petitioner, however, contended that the very property claimed by him has been subjected to the auction proceedings and alleged that such action was undertaken in collusion with other respondents and private individuals. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid acts and apprehending interference with his possession, the petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid acts and apprehending interference with his possession, the petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent No. 1 in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from his lawfully purchased property is arbitrary, illegal, and dehors the jurisdiction of the authorities, being in breach of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that no proceedings under the SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT , 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act") are pending in respect of the petitioner’s land and that the earlier proceedings had already culminated upon the bank taking possession of the mortgaged property belonging to Smt. Radha Devi. Therefore, any further interference by the respondents is unwarranted and amounts to an overreach of the subsisting status quo order passed by the learned trial court. Thus, it was prayed that the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner and from re-initiating proceedings against him under the SARFAESI Act. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3, in their reply, submitted that no specific allegations have been made against them and their impleadment in the present writ petition is merely formal. The dispute pertains to possession of the mortgaged property which was already taken by respondent No. 4—bank with police assistance pursuant to lawful directions of the District Superintendent of Police, Bikaner. The police authorities only rendered assistance as per due process and undertook no independent action prejudicial to the petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of any cause of action against these respondents, be dismissed qua them. 5. Continuing the submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.4—bank raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short “DRT”). It was submitted that the property brought to auction by the Bank is entirely distinct from that as claimed by the petitioner and had been duly mortgaged in favour of the Bank by M/s Mahalaxmi Trading Co. through its proprietor Nemchand Bothra (deceased) and Smt. Radha Devi as guarantor. It was submitted that the property brought to auction by the Bank is entirely distinct from that as claimed by the petitioner and had been duly mortgaged in favour of the Bank by M/s Mahalaxmi Trading Co. through its proprietor Nemchand Bothra (deceased) and Smt. Radha Devi as guarantor. Further, it was averred that the auction proceedings were carried out strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions, and has culminated in the issuance of a valid sale certificate dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure R/3) in favour of the auction purchaser, thereby conferring independent third-party rights. It was further submitted that the said auction purchaser, in whose favour such rights have accrued, has not been impleaded as a party to the present writ petition, rendering the same liable to dismissal for non-joinder of a necessary party. Therefore, it was prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable in the eye of law, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced at the bar and from perusal of the material available on record it appears that the petitioner has approached this court assailing the measures undertaken by the secured creditor (respondent no. 4- bank) under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, as per the pleadings, the petitioner claims to be in possession of the scheduled land on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 28.03.2014 and seeks protection against dispossession by respondent No. 1 and re-initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by respondent No. 4. 8. From the material placed on record, it is apparent that respondent No. 4 – Bank had initiated proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act against the borrower, Nemchand Bothra (deceased) and Smt. Radha Devi as guarantor, which culminated in the lawful auction of the property and a sale certificate (Annexure R/3) was duly issued in favour of the auction purchaser, Smt. Aishwarya Runthla W/o Shri Shashikant. The property claimed by the petitioner is entirely distinct and separate from the mortgaged property that was auctioned under the SARFAESI proceedings. The mortgaged property pertains to Ward No. 14, situated in front of Karni Mata Mandir, Lunkaransar, admeasuring 32 x 43 ft. (1376 sq. The property claimed by the petitioner is entirely distinct and separate from the mortgaged property that was auctioned under the SARFAESI proceedings. The mortgaged property pertains to Ward No. 14, situated in front of Karni Mata Mandir, Lunkaransar, admeasuring 32 x 43 ft. (1376 sq. ft.), whereas the property claimed by the petitioner is situated in Ward No. 14, in front of Karni Mata Mandir, Lunkaransar, and measures 65 x 33 ft. (2145 sq. ft.). Therefore, the question of re-initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not arise, as the recovery process in respect of mortgaged property has already culminated in the issuance of a sale certificate in accordance with law and the property claimed by the petitioner is admitted to be distinct from the mortgaged asset. Additionally, the petitioner has failed to implead the auction purchaser, as party, in the present petition, being a necessary and proper party, in whose favour a sale certificate, was issued following the completion of the SARFAESI proceedings rendering such omission contrary to law. 9. Even otherwise, assuming that the petitioner was aggrieved by any measure taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the statute itself provides an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the principal controversy that arises for consideration before this court is whether the present writ petition, particularly in light of the fact that the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT is maintainable or not ? 10. The SARFAESI Act is a self-contained code prescribing a comprehensive mechanism for redressal of grievances arising from actions of the secured creditor. In this regard, reference may be made to Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as under: " Section 17 . 10. The SARFAESI Act is a self-contained code prescribing a comprehensive mechanism for redressal of grievances arising from actions of the secured creditor. In this regard, reference may be made to Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as under: " Section 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, [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 measure had been taken." The aforesaid provision is of wide amplitude, encompassing not only borrower but also third parties who claim to be aggrieved by the actions of the secured creditor. The scope of the expression “any person” in Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act has been authoritatively interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Singh V. Heeralal and Others [(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 444] wherein it was observed as under: "17. The expression ‘any person’ used in Section 17 is of wide import and takes within its fold not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by action taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act…." 11. In light of the statutory framework and the matter at hand, it is evident that the petitioner has bypassed the remedy specifically provided under the SARFAESI Act and instead invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that when a statute offers a specific and efficacious remedy for addressing grievances, recourse to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not maintainable. In this regard the Apex Court, in Union Bank of India and Others v. Panchanan Subudhi [(2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 552] , reiterated that High Court ought not to have interfered, more so when a statutory remedy is available under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In this regard the Apex Court, in Union Bank of India and Others v. Panchanan Subudhi [(2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 552] , reiterated that High Court ought not to have interfered, more so when a statutory remedy is available under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 603] , the Apex Court categorically elucidated certain limited exceptions of the above settled legal proposition which are set out as follows: "Exceptions- (illustrative and non-exhaustive) to said requirement enumerated: (i) Where remedy available under statute is not effective but only mere formality with no substantial relief, (ii) where statutory authority not acted in accordance with provisions of enactment in question, or (iii) where statutory authority acted in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or (iv) where statutory authority resorted to invoke provisions which are repealed, or (v) where statutory authority passed an order in total violation of principles of natural justice." (Paras 15 and 16) 12. In furtherance of the above discussion, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how the present case falls within any of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra). The petitioner has neither pleaded nor established that the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act was in-efficacious or illusory in nature. In absence of any such averment or substantiation, the invocation of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under cannot be justified. 13. It is further observed that the petitioner had already instituted a separate suit before the learned trial court for injunction against the vendors, Pawan Kumar Bothra and Nemchand Bothra, wherein the trial court has passed an interim order with a direction to maintain the status quo with respect to the property and record. The pendency of such proceedings, coupled with the claim of petitioner founded on an unregistered agreement to sell (Annexure-1), further indicates that disputed questions of fact are involved which cannot appropriately be adjudicated by this court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 14. The pendency of such proceedings, coupled with the claim of petitioner founded on an unregistered agreement to sell (Annexure-1), further indicates that disputed questions of fact are involved which cannot appropriately be adjudicated by this court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 14. Further bare perusal of record , it is found that there exists material inconsistencies in the property description in the pleading of petitioner, as the agreement to sell (Annexure-1) describes the property as open land with debris, whereas the legal notice issued by the petitioner (Annexure-5), characterizes it as a residential plot with structures. This inconsistency in the description of property raises serious doubts about the veracity of the assertions advanced by the petitioner. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the petitioner, without availing the specific and efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, has directly invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is contrary to the settled position of law. Further it is an admitted position that the respondent no.4-Bank had already lawfully concluded the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by conducting an e-auction of the mortgaged property and issuing a sale certificate dated 13.04.2023 in favour of a third-party purchaser, who further has not been impleaded as party, rendering the present petition defective for non-joinder of necessary party. Additionally, the reliance of the petitioner on an unregistered agreement to sell and the inconsistencies in the description of the property further undermine the credibility of the claim. As the statutory proceedings have already attained finality, in such circumstances, the petitioner’s prayer seeking restraint against the respondent no. 4-bank from re-initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is wholly misconceived. In the present case the statutory e-auction proceedings have already been culminated and a sale certificate to this effect has also been issued thus, no question of re-initiation arises. 16. Consequently, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 17. Stay petition and any other application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.