10' In order to substantiate their contention, the Respondent Bank filed relevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent Bank filed o.A.2o7 123 against the Applicant herein and smt.V.Srilatha for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,8l,39,rrLr- and the said oA was alrowed by this Tribunal on 27'lo'2o23' Thereafter, the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.19.12.2022 uls 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,2oo2 and, the same was received by the Applicant as evidenced by his signature on the office copy of the said noticc. It is not the casc of the Applicant that he submitted any objcctions to the said notice. Thcrcaftcr, the tlank issued possession notice dt'22'O2'2O23 and the said notice was duly received by the Applicant as evidenced by his signature on the office of the said notice. The said possession notice was published in Ilnglish and relugu daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank and also aflixed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Bank' Thereafter, the Respondent Bank obtained valuation report dt.16. rr.2023 from the approved varuer. Subsequentry, the Bank issued e Auction sale Notice clt.25.0 8.2o2g for conducting auction of the schedule property and as pcr the material documents filed by the Bank, the said notice was published in two newspapers and also affixed on the schedule property. However, in pursuance of the said sale notice, no t was.eoe$rleted\by thc RespondenL r ---llank. ;.;o;{i{i.f \tiSN"
