10' In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank fired relevant material documents along with the counter filed by them. As per the said documents, it is crear that the Respondent issued demand notice dt.27,O7.2022 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2002 and the said notice was received by the Applicant as evidenced by his signature on the office copy of the said notice filed by the bank. Thereafter, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.13.1o.2o22ul s 13(4) of the Act and the said possession notice was published in English and rerugu da y newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Respondent. However, the Respondent Bank has not filed any documents to prove that the said possession notice was affixed on the schedule property. But mere non-affixture of the possession notice on the schedule property particularly when the Appricant is having knowredge of the possession notice issued by the Respondent,cannot be a ground to chalrenge the said notice. when the Applicant received the possession notice and the said notice is also pubtished in two daily newspapers including one in vernacular language, even if the said notice is not affixed on the secured asset, it cannot be a ground for the borrower as the affixture is meant only for the general public. In this regard, ttre Hon bre Htgh court of And.hra Prodesh rn M/s solrthro prruo,te Lrmrted vs. The Debts recouery lfrbunal-l, reported. ln 2Olg SCC Onltne.tlydf gg,has held in paragraph 17, which is as follows:
