lalf of the 3. A detail written objection has bben n19d on rgspondent-bank. It is submitted tHat this $ A has b4,n b„„ght by Kailash Tiwari alias Kailasha ajd Neelbm Tripbt$i, sister-in law of the applicant no 1. It is submjtted th+ re It-bank has m,d, ,,„y ,,mpli,n„, ,„d chajlenge t& demi notice and b„„„i,n n,ti„ i, highly tim, b4„,d. It,Ii, ul pointed out ,at with respect to same secured a;sets, ode SA i9/2021 was .ismissed by this Tribunal on 18 02.2021 an Fo. 134/2023 las been dismissed as withdrawn, lccord ;ly, thi4 i+ third SA. It Is submitted that the of the order r e S P 0: d e nt w b +][11!q:1111hH i : C F ][1[F1IpI iT gated 18.02.2021 passed in SA Vo.69/2921 had i4ued a fresh botice to the borrower, guarantorJ as well as leghl jlleirs of late fagat Narayan Tiwari, Vikas Tiw4ri and lilasha ld other. It is btated that applicant had filed IPariwa; Regisjed, before this +hbunal and legal heirs as per P4dwar kegister 'e arrayed at he time of serving notice. It is drther stated th4t hppli,,„t h„ challenged sale notice dated 13.].2024, loweve ;ale notice is 10.5.2024. It is fuN„, ,t,t,d th+t P,i„ ,,1, 9v 1 icheduled on 30.4.2024 in pursuance of clear ]0 days hotice datEd 21.3.2024 was made but, no bidder participated, henke, subsequent tha' Ide Annexure after giving 15 d,ys n,ti„. It is b,int,d ,Ut No.R-7, pages 206 to 216, valu4tion report has b den filed. It is deAabd notice and argued that i. the p„sent SA, +he d,t, of possession notice has not been Hbntioned, thou le applicants were quite aware as it was men4ioned in SA Nb.]34/2023. It is pointed out that in lieu of sale dotice dated 13. :024, sale was made on 29.5.2024 and prior I to HUrlg of [e I said SA, the respondent-bank had received 1 entire bid C) lnt from the auction pu„h„„ M,. Vi,end+a Vikram Singh. It is argued that since without „,ay Ing auction P1 ;e, any relief cannot be given to the applicanl and further It ly flaw in the
