fourth sale notice by them and applicant has challenged all the sale notices, thus far. It is also submitted that all the notices were frustrated, on applicants’ compliance of interim orders. Applicant did not challenge the present sale notice, where sale is concluded duly and hence had challenged the sale certificate. Applicant having not raised a challenge to the very sale notice cannot raise issues touching upon the sale notice after conclusion of the sale and issuance of a sale certificate. Applicants are aware of the description of the property which was described as such, in all the earlier sale notices which were duly challenged by the applicant and it cannot be the case of applicant that the sale notice description is different only in the present challenge wherein sale is concluded. Ld.Counsel submits that the description of the property as maintained in the sale notice indicates that the property is identifiable from the Survey No., Door No. and the description provided thereupon, for any Auction Purchaser who intends to participate in the bidding process. The allegations of the applicant that the description of the property is not inclusive of the extent available on site, is farfetched and has no merit in such submissions. It is a trait principle in the conduct of a sale that any sale would be, “as is where is” and “as is what is” method only. The applicant had never raised their objection with regard to the description of the property at any stage of the SARFAESI proceedings and it is strange for them to raise the same in this proceedings. The valuation report obtained and furnished in the typed set of documents establish that valuation has been done for the property in its entirety and then only the reserve price is fixed taking into consideration several other attending factors. Ld.Counsel submits that the extents as are permitted in terms of the plan obtained by the applicant is only valued and any extra extents built thereupon, cannot be construed
