R.V.RAVEENDRAN,J. - (1.) THE petitioner is the third defendant in O. A. No. 182 of 1995 filed by the second respondent on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. The petitioner claims that he became aware of the said proceedings only during June, 1997, and immediately thereafter filed an application (I. A. No. I) on July 10, 1997, to recall the order placing him ex parte and seeking permission to contest the proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the said application on August 7, 1997, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500. The case was adjourned on September 3, 1997, for payment of costs and for filing his statement (reply). As the petitioner did not file his statement, the following order was made on September 3, 1997 : "D3 absent. Reply not filed. No representation for the defendants. Hence, place the file before Bench for further trial by September 24, 1997".
(2.) ON September 24, 1997, there was no representation and A. Ws. 1 and 2 (bank's witnesses), who were present for cross -examination were discharged, and the evidence of the applicant -bank was closed and the matter was posted to October 29, 1997, for the defendants' evidence. On October 29, 1997, petitioner (third defendant) filed an application (I. A. No. 8) requesting the Tribunal to recall the orders dated September 3, 1997, and September 24, 1997, and permit him to contest the matter. In his affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner stated that on September 3, 1997, his counsel had instructed him to appear before the Tribunal and pay the costs, but he could not reach the court in time ; again on September 24, 1997, he was instructed by his counsel to appear before the court, but on account of heavy traffic, he could not reach the Tribunal in time and his nonappearance was due to bona fide reasons. The Tribunal considered I. A. No. 8 and allowed the application by the following order : "Heard I. A. No. 8. The witnesses were present on September 24, 1997, at the request of defendants to cross -examine. The defendants and counsel remained absent on that day without any reason. Again the defendants have sought for recall of the witnesses. This calls for serious action since the defendants have no regard for the orders of the court. Hence, I. A. No. 8 is allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 2,500. Cost and witnesses to be kept present by December 9, 1997". Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition and sought quashing of the said order dated October 29, 1997. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the Tribunal to post the matter for the petitioner's objections and consider his contentions. The petitioner has urged the following grounds : (i) When I. A. No. 8 was allowed, the case ought to have been posted for filing of statement of objections (reply) by the petitioner and not for evidence. Posting the case straightaway for evidence violates the principles of natural justice. (ii) The claim of the bank ran into crores of rupees and, therefore, sufficient time and opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner. (iii) Levy of costs of Rs. 2,500 by the Tribunal, is excessive and penal in - nature. Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ("the Act" for short), provides that any person aggrieved by an order made or deemed to have been made by the Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the Act in regard to the impugned order. The mere fact that the Appellate Tribunal is situated at a distant place, cannot be a ground for holding that appeal is not an efficacious alternative remedy.
(3.) A writ petition is not intended to be a substitute for appeals and revisions that may be provided under a statute. Where there is an efficacious alternative remedy in respect of the order, under the statute itself, the party aggrieved should avail of such remedy and normally a writ petition filed by such aggrieved person ignoring the statutory remedy, will not be entertained. But there is a growing tendency on the part of the defendants to challenge interim orders passed in proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunals by filing writ petitions, many a time, only with the intention of protracting the proceedings. Such a tendency requires to be discouraged.;