T2, However' during the course of arguments, Ld. counser for the Respondent submitted that in pursuance of the impugned Sale Notice dt. 14.0 3.2023, no auction was conducted by the Respondent against the schedule properties. As no auction was conducted in pursuance of the impugned sale notice dt'14'03'2023, the relief claimed by the Applicant who is regal heir of the mortgagor in the SA becomes infructuous and nothing survives in the present sA for adjudication and there is no need to decide the validity or otherwise of the impugned sale notice. So far as the demand notice and possession notice are concerned, the said notices are perfectry lega_l and valid as the Bank has strictly followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of SARFAEsI Act, 2002 and Rules made thereunder in issuing the said notices to the borrower and the mortgagor. Hence, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the Applicant in the present SA becomes infructuous and the SA is liabre to be dismissed. Suffice, if a direction is given to the Respondent bank to issue fre sle#TEffiax-^ r^- ^^--.r----: r conducting auction of the schedule property by :,:1"1yj"i*,S.,,EN:.d,.."o.,t.,,,o,";;;ffi ;',:,#:1 SARFAESI acq20OZ ""&$&." made thereunder.
