Phase 1/9, Vishal Nagar Bathinda. As per Bank, this notice was received back with the endorsement by the Postman that the Applicant had left without address. However, instead of re-sending the notice under Section 13(2) at the address of H.No.334, Street No.1/3, Sarabha Nagar, Bathinda, the Bank published the same in the newspaper. Despite the fact, that in the record of the Bank, it had the address of H.No.334, Street No.1/3, Sarabha Nagar, Bathinda, it issued the possession notice at the address of H.No.89, Gali No.1/9, Phase 1/9, Vishal Nagar Bathinda. It was again received back unserved with the endorsement ‘left without address’. Further, the Bank filed a civil suit against the Applicant wherein it gave his address as resident of H.No.334, Street No.1/3, Sarabha Nagar, Bathinda. It is strange that though, the Bank had with it the address of the Applicant as resident of H.No.334, Street No.1/3, Sarabha Nagar, Bathinda, yet, it did not send any notice at that address. Further, the official of the Bank made a spot visit on 16.04.2021 and reported that the business address of the Applicant is lying closed and that he had also visited at residence of the Applicant, but no one opened the door. In the report, the Bank official did not mention at which address, he had visited the house of the Applicant. Mr. Singla, counsel for the Bank argued that since as per the Aadhar Card, the address of the Applicant was resident of H.No.89, Gali No.1/9, Phas 1/9, Vishal Nagar Bathinda, the Bank had sent the notice at that address. However, I am of the considered view that, there is no force in the contention of counsel for the respondent Bank. It had the latest address of the Applicant. Still it did not serve the notice to him at the new address but continued to serve the notices at the old address. Admittedly, none of the notices was served upon the Applicant. I am of the considered view that, the whole of the SARFAESI action and the auction conducted by the Bank are illegal and the same are hereby set aside. The auction purchaser would restore the possession to the
