“10. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the case on hand and the averments in the plaints, we are of the opinion that both the courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaints in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. As observed hereinabove, the main prayer in the suits is challenging the decree passed by DRT. The decree passed by the learned DRT and even the order passed by the Recovery Officer are appealable under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act. In Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan [(2001)6 SCC 569] , this Court has observed and held that in view of the alternate remedy of preferring the appeal before DRAT, the petition under Article 227 challenging the order passed by DRT shall not be maintainable, without exhaustion of such remedy. In O.C.Krishnan , decree passed by DRT was challenged in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court allowed the petition. While allowing the appeal of the bank – Punjab National Bank, this Court has observed that without exhaustion of the remedies under the RDDBFI Act, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227. While holding so, in paragraph 6, this Court has observed and held as under: (O.C.Krishnan case, SCC p.570)
