On verification of entire records, I find that, ShriGuruva Reddy along with Applicant-2 mortgaged the movables and immovable properties for developing their hospital situated at Aruppukottai. All the properties available in the name of Shri B. Guruva Reddy. After the death of Shri B Guruva Reddy, the defendant bank impleaded the legal heirs as party to the proceedings. Already 2 sons are party in this application, another legal heir of SmtJeevitha daughter of Guruva Reddy impleaded as party. But, as per the banks affidavit itself, they have sent all the notices to the parties, but the notice to SmtJeevithareturned and thenpaper publication also effected in the locality. I find that, covers returned with remarks as Left India, but, defendant bank has not taken any steps to complete the service in respect of one of the legalheir SmtJeevitha properly. Hence I come to the conclusion that, eventhough one of the legal heir SmtJeevitha is not as a party to the proceedings, service of all the parties are basic requirement, therefore, this is one of the procedural violation and defendant bank has violated under Rule (3) of the SARFAESI Act.
