In order to substantiate their contention, the Bank encrosed rerevant material documents along with the Reply filed by them. As per the said documents, it is clear that the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dt.O8.O9.2023 u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the said notice was sent through Regd. post to the Applicant and others as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. The bank also pubrished the said notice in Engrish and rerugu da y newspapers. Thus there is valid service of demand notice on the Applicant. Subsequently, the bank issued possession notice dt.2g. r 2.2023 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant and others through Regd. post. The said possession notice was affxed on the schedule property as depicted in the copies of photographs filed by the Bank and the said notice was published in Telugu and English daily newspapers as evidenced by the copies of paper publication filed by the Bank. Thus the Respondent Bank has duly followed Rule 8(1)&(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 20o2 in issuing possession notice. Thereafter the bank issued pre-sale notice dt. 17. o2.2o24 and the said notice was sent to the Applicant through Regd. post as evidenced by the postal track reports filed by the Bank. prior to issuing the impugned Sale Notice dt.26.O9.2024, the Bank also obtained valuation report dt.07.0 g.2024 from the valuer ofthe Bank and thus, followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and Rules made thereunder in issuing statutory notices to the Applicant. So, far as the impugned Sale Notice dt.26.O9.2024 is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank submitted that no auction was conducted by the t to the siid sale notice. So, in view of the fact tl,rat no .{;\t - i-:-,;'Yi ucted by the Bank in pursuance of the impugned Sale lvoti$:.(at.z6l 4,1 am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the Applibbnt in t SA becomes infructuous and there is no need ZtJ 8&i&Ptr'. ty or otherwise of the impugned sale notice 4
