1O. To substantiate their contention, Respondent filed materialdocuments along with the Reply filed by them. Asper the said documents, itis clear that after classifying the loan account of theApplicants as NPA, the Respondent issued demand notice dt.O3.O2.2O23 u/s13(2) ofthe SARAFAESI Acl, 2OO2 and the said noticewas sent tothe Applicants through Regd. Post as evidenced by thepostal track reports filedby the Respondent. When the Applicants failedto comply with the said notice, the Respondent issued possession notice dt.08.05.2023 u/s13(4)of the Act,2OO2 and the said notice was sent to theApplicantsthrough Regd'Post as evidenced by the postal track reportsfiled by the Respondent. The said possession notice was published in Telugu and English dailynewspapers as evidenced by the copies ofpaper publication filed by the Respondent. However, no documents are liled by the Respondentto prove that the said possession notice was af{ixed on the schedule property. Butmere non- affixture of the possession notice onthe schedulepropertyparticularly when the Applicant is having knowledge ofthe possessionnotice issued by the Respondent, cannot be aground tochallenge the said notice. When the Applicant received thepossessionnoticeand the said noticeis also published in two daily newspapers including one invernacular language, even if the said notice isnot affixedon the secured asset, it cannot be a ground for the borroweras the affixture is meant only for the general regard, tlre Hon'ble Hlgh Court of Andhra Priuate Llmtted Vs. The Debts recouery ola SCC Onllne Hud 788. has held in
