compliance in terms of their submissions. On perusal of records, it is found that respondent financial institution had neither averred in their counter pleadings regarding the affixture of the impugned possession notice nor had furnished proof regarding the same. However, since applicants did not raise a specific ground for non-affixture of the impugned possession notice and since applicants themselves had acknowledged the receipt of the said notice, which is evidenced through the typed set of documents filed by respondent financial institution, the same is considered only as an irregularity and not an infirmity. Similarly, respondent has also not filed any proof evidencing affixture of demand notice on the mortgaged property, consequent upon publishing demand notice, as warranted under law, although acknowledgement cards of all applicants for the receipt of demand notice are duly filed. Respondent bank did not explain as to why the demand notice has to be published while there are acknowledgements from applicants herein and therefore non-furnishing of its affixture is not considered as an infirmity.
