Iqbal Singh, J. - By way of this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order 16th June, 1997 (Annexure P.8) whereby three applications moved by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'). 2. The following facts are necessary for deciding this revision petition : 2.1. A suit was brought by the Punjab and Sind Bank, City Centre Branch, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as `the plaintiff-Bank') (Civil Suit No. 269 dated 24th March, 1986) against Hardeep Singh Sandhu (since deceased), the father of the petitioner Sandeep Singh, for recovery of loan of more than Rs. 20 lacs on the ground that th defendant on 23rd January, 1980 made a request for opening Current Account with the plaintiff-bank with overdraft facility and the plaintiff-Bank sanctioned overdraft facility upto the limit of Rs. 10 lacs. The defendant executed certain documents in favour of the plaintiff-Bank on 10th December, 1980, in this regard. On 22nd April, 1983, balance of Rs. 12,34,994.74 was found in the account of the defendant. On that date also, the defendant executed certain loan documents in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. Time and again, letters supporting the balance of loan amount were also executed by the defendant. However, the defendant made no payment. 2.2. Defendant Hardeep Singh filed written statement on 5th January, 1987 showing that the defendant was the Managing Director M/s Navdeep Theatres and M/s Sandeep Theatres. The defendant contended that Current Account was opened with the plaintiff-Bank on the advice of the plaintiff-Bank, but no document for opening the Current Account was executed by the defendant. The defendant further contended that no loan documents were executed by him. It was further stated no loan facility was granted to M/s Navdeep Theatres and M/s Sandeep Theatres and blank papers of loan facilities were got signed and the said blank papers were put to use as loan facility of the Current Accounts. It was also contended that the loan was agreed to be given at the rate of simple interest. 2.3. Defendant Hardeep Singh died and after his death his legal repre-sentatives were brought on record as a party and the amended plaint was filed on 17th February, 1995. 2.4. On 12th February, 1987, six issues were framed in the suit and thereafter evidence of some witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank was recorded. On 8th February, 1994 one witness i.e. Brij Lal was examined on behalf of the defendant by the trial Court. Thereafter, because of coming into being of the Tribunal, the suit was entrusted to the Tribunal on 2nd September, 1996 and the parties were informed to appear before the Tribunal on 16th October, 1996. 2.5. The defendants did not appear before the Tribunal and ex parte proceedings were taken against them. However, on the application of the defendants, the ex parte order was set aside on 11th February, 1997. On 28th April, 1997. On 28th April, 1997, the defendants closed their evidence. On the very day i.e. 28th April, 1997, three applications were put in on behalf of the defendants, replies to which were filed on 10th June, 1997. 2.6. The first application was filed on the ground that deceased Hardeep Singh-defendant had two current accounts with Oriental Bank of Commerce which were in the name of M/s Sandeep Theatres and M/s Kisan Workers. Defendant Hardeep Singh withdrew a sum of Rs. 27 lacs from both the above-mentioned accounts during the period from 10th December, 1980 to 13th December, 1980 and got prepared pay order/cash order in his name and got them deposited with the plaintiff-Bank in his account, but only Rs. 8 lacs were credited to the loan account of the plaintiff-Bank and the balance of Rs. 19 lacs is not shown to have been credited to this account. The defendant made request to the Manager concerned of the Oriental Bank of Commerce to issue necessary certificate regarding the withdrawal of Rs. 27 lacs by Hardeep Singh-defendant, but the said Manager did not do the same. Therefore, it was prayed that the concerned Manager of the Oriental Bank of Commerce and the Clerk concerned along with the register of pay orders be summoned together with the counter foils of Pay Orders/Cash Orders. This application was opposed by the plaintiff-Bank on the ground that the same was filed only with a view to prolong the litigation. 2.7. The second application was to the effect that the current account with the plaintiff-Bank was opened on the advice of the plaintiff-Bank; that no application for opening the account was given by Hardeep Singh-defendant and that no application was made for availing of the overdraft facility. In this application, a direction was sought to the plaintiff-Bank to produce the application for opening the Current Account; application for availing the overdraft facility; and the annexure containing the terms and conditions of loan and the original Pay order. This application was also opposed by the plaintiff-Bank. 2.8. In the third application the defendants prayed that they may be allowed to get necessary documents examined from the Hand Writing Expert. 2.9. Vide its order dated 16th June, 1997, the Tribunal dismissed all the three applications moved by the defendants. Hence the present revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that an equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner-defendant under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). To decide this preliminary objection, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act provide as under :- 17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals.- (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. (2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or demand to have been made by a Tribunal under this Act. 18. Bar of jurisdiction.- On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. 19. Application to the Tribunal.- (1) Where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making application, actually or voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and be accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such fee for filing the application as may be prescribed : Provided that the fee may be prescribed having regard to the amount of debt to be recovered : Provided further that nothing contained in this sub-section relating to fee shall apply to cases transferred to the Tribunal under sub-section (1) of Section 31. (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx (5) xxxxx (6) The tribunal may make an interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay) against the defendant to debar him from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with, or disposing of, any property and assets belonging to him without the prior permission of the Tribunal. (7) xxxxx 20. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.- (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. (2) No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made by a Tribunal with the consent of the parties. (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx (5) xxxxx (6) xxxxx 21. Deposit of amount of debt due, on filing appeal.- Where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal seventy-five per cent of the amount of debt so due from him as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19 : Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this Section. 5. A perusal of the above provisions of the Act shows that remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the orders passed by the Tribunal is available. Section 17 of the Act lays down the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal as well as Appellate Tribunal. Section 18 of the Act prescribes that no Court or other authority shall have any jurisdiction (except the Supreme Court and High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. Section 19 of the Act prescribes procedure of the Tribunal. Section 20 of the Act gives a right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal from an order of the Tribunal made under the Act. Section 21 lays down that an appeal preferred by a person from whom amount of debt is due to a bank or a financial institution, shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal seventy-five per cent of the amount of debt so due from him as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act. 6. The contention of Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are very wide and can be exercised in matters like the present one where the Tribunal has acted illegally resulting in injustice to the petitioner, has no force because the Act provides an adequate and efficacious remedy for obtaining relief in respect of an order passed by the Tribunal by way of filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner cannot be permitted to abandon resort to the statutory remedy of appeal and to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The remedy provided under Article 227 of the Constitution is not intended to supersede the modes of obtaining relief before the Appellate Courts or Tribunals. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 20(i) of the Act, the remedy available to the petitioner is by way of filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and not by way of filing revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Another contention of Mr. Mittal is that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal but I do not find any force in this contention in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Act wherein statutory remedy by way of filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal has been provided. 7. The next question is - whether the words "any order" occurring in Section 17(2) of the Act and the words "an order" occurring in Section 20(1) of the Act includes every order passed by the Tribunal under the Act which affects the rights or liabilities of the parties, or these relate to only final order passed by the Tribunal. In the context of Sections 17(2) and 20(1) of the Act, I am of the opinion that the words "any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act" occurring in Section 17(2) of the Act and the words "an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act" occurring in Section 20(i) relate to every order of the Tribunal made under the Act which affects the rights or liabilities of the parties. Obviously, any interim order passed under Section 19(6) of the Act by the Tribunal, if it affects the rights or liabilities of any party, will be subject to appeal under Section 20(1) of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.