dismissed bythis Tribunal vide orders dt. rz.oz.2023.In the said order, it is clearly held that the Respondent Bank has issued demand noticedt.Os. 12 .2O2O and, possession notice dt. l2.O 3.2021 as per the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rures, 2OO2 and the SA is bad for non_joinder of necessary party in respect of the application schedule property i.e. owner and mortgagor of the schedule property who is a guarantor to the Applicant. In view of the above orders dt.l7.OZ.2O2B passed in SA 4T 12021 which became final, now the Applicant cannot plead that he has not received any demand notice and possession notice issued by the Respondent Bank and the bank did not foliow Rule g(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Ru1es, 2002 while taking possession of the schedule property. Even though, this Tribunal in sA 4z 12021 , has categoricalry held that the owner of the schedule property is necessary party to the proceedings, the Applicant filed the present SA without impleading the owner cum mortgagor of the schedule propert5r. As the owner cum mortgagor of the schedule property failed to vacate the schedule premises, the Respondent bank approached the Honble District Magistrate, Nalgonda for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the schedule propert5r. In pursuance of the order passed by the Ld' District Magistrate, Nargonda, the Authorized officer of the Bank issued vacate Notice dt.23.0g.2023 to the Applicant herein for vacating the schedule premises. So, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Vacate Notice dt.23.0a.202g issued by the Authorized officer of the Respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the schedule property pursuant to the orders of Ld. District Magistrate, Nalgonda, is as per the procedure laid down under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002. So thi
