the demand notice dated 02.05.2023 and possession notice dated 11.07.2023 and the orders passed under S.14 is not entitled to challenge the said measures in this SA challenging belatedly impugning the sale certificate. It is also contended that, the applicant have no right title and interest in the mortgaged property, as the property had already been sold in favour of the additional respondent and the sale certificate already been issued. The respondent had already contended that, the application is time barred and liable to be dismissed on that ground. In rebutting the contention in the SA, the respondent contends that, the demand notice dated 02.05.2023 had been issued in due compliance of Rule 3 of the SIE Rules and there are no flaws in procedure as the demand notice is also served. Since the repayments were not made despite issuance of the demand notice, the possession notice was issued, published and affixed in compliance of the Rule 8 of the SIE Rules. With regard to the S.14 measures, it is stated that the actual possession of the property had been already taken pursuant to the orders of the Ld. Magistrate. In respect of the sale notice leading to the issuance of impugned sale notice, it is contended that, the same is also duly served as mandated under the act. It is also pointed out that, the applicants’ right of redemption if any, had been lost as the sale certificate is already issued. It is also the case of the respondent that, since the applicant failed to file the application within 45 days from the date of disposal of the writ petition by the Hon’ble High court, the SA is
