2' The averments made in the apprication, in brief, are that, the Applicant is a 3'd party to the proceedings initiated by the lst Resp<;ndent Bank against the schedule property. The Appricant is absoluleowner of the schedure property who acquired the same thor'r-rgh registered sare Deed No.3990/201g from Respondents No'3&4 and enjoying the schedule property since 26.04.2o1g. All of a suddcn, some bank officials came to the schedule property along with advr<:atc commissioner and gave a notice to the Appricant to evict the schcdule property. when the Applicant approached the Bank, she cam. r.o know that one smt. RagulaKavitha, Respondent No.2 herein has taken a loan from the 1st Respondent Bank by filing forgery documcnts and without physical verification of the schedure property, the ba.k sanctioned the roan to the Respondent No.2. Respondent No'2 has purchased the propert5r from one sri p.Shekar through Sale Deed No'3066/2016 and there is difference in the schedule property. The I'tRespondent Bank failed to follow Rule g(1)&(2) of Security Intr:rtrst (EnforcemegL-fulR 2oo2 in taking possession of the schcclule prope Respondent Bank hasnot affixed any rrotices o proft$4;7:nor visited the schedule property and rhe Bank to proceed :rr against the schedule property. Hencc thc 't.: :: "I,.'li iiil '/il I: .' ,' j; l' .$ . !.t' ,;i,, ,2 ; , ,',,
