Dismissed

Mr B P Kanikairaj v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRT26 Mar 2026SA/484/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application challenging a sale certificate. The court held that the 45-day limitation period under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory and not subject to condonation, and that a sale certificate is not a 'measure' challengeable under the Act.

What did the court decide?

The present Securitization Application is dismissed as it is barred by limitation and the sale certificate is not a challengeable measure under Section 17.

Mr B P Kanikairaj versus Karur Vysya Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SA No. 484 of 2022

¶9

Mr. B. P. Kanikairaj, S/o Late Mr. B. I. Philip, No.54, New Pillaiyar Koilstreet, Mannurpet, Chennai 600 040.

¶10

Mrs. Prema, W/o. Mr. David Devamani, No.58, Ramavittobar Nagar, Tiruvannamalai 606 601.

¶11

…Applicants

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

The Authorised Officer, Karur Vysya Bank, KVB Towers, II Floor, 568, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai 600 018.

¶14

Mr. S. Sugumar, S/o MR. Sagadevan, No.56, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Kumakam Bedu, Thiruninravur, Tiruvallur 602 024

¶15

Mr. R. Maria Suresh Kumar, S/o. Mr. Rethinamani, No.9-47E, Valiya Vilai, Melmidalam, Vilavancode, Uadayamarthandam, Kanniyakumari 629 178.

¶16

…Respondent

¶17

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶18

Counsel for Applicant : Ms. B. Gurumurthy Counsel for 1^st Respondent : Ms. R. Uma Sudhan

¶19

Respondents 2 and 3 were set ex-parte on 13.03.2026

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

ORDER ON SA 484 /2022

¶24

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶25

The present SA is filed challenging the Sale Certificate dated 22.09.2022 registered as Doc.No.8005 of 2022 on 16.11.2022 before the SRO, Konnur pursuant to the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022.

¶26

3. Pleadings of the Applicants

¶27

3.1 The case as put forth is loan account was operated successfully and another director had made the respondent bank to classify the loan account as NPA on 24.10.2019 claiming an outstanding amount due Rs.3,66,82,781.79 as on 31.12.2019 which is in violation of RBI guidelines and the claim against the borrower company is also barred by limitation.

¶28

3.2 The respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice on 20.01.2020 for total outstanding due of Rs.3,65,82,781.79/- as on 31.12.2019. Further, Mrs. B.P. Selvi is the mortgagor and the mother of 2^nd applicant who passed away on 21.06.2020. The Sale notice is issued in her name and the applicants are the legal heir of the mortgagor.

¶29

3.3 In fact, the jural relationship came to an end between the personal guarantors and bank when the respondent bank has issued the

¶30

SA No.484/2022

¶31

3 26.03.2026

¶32

Section 13(2) Demand Notice. The respondent bank has issued the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 through post at 20.21.38 hours on 20.07.2022 which is received by the 2^nd applicant on 22.07.2022 for the auction to be held on 06.08.2022. Therefore, the respondent bank has failed to issued clear 15 days’ notice which is in violation of Rule 8(6) and 9(1) of SIE Rules.

¶33

3.4 Further, the claim is barred by limitation as per Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act and in violation of RBI guidelines. In the grounds, it is contended that the applicant has received the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 only on 22.07.2022 scheduling the sale to be held on 06.08.2022, hence there is no clear 15 days’ notice given to the applicant as per Rule 8(6) and 9(1) and 3(3) of SIE Rules. Hence, the applicants pray to set aside the Sale certificate dated 22.09.2022. The applicants have relied on the following Judgments:

¶34

i. Hon’ble High Court of Madras in P. Magudeeswaran Vs. The Authorized Officer, Lakshmi Vilas bank Coimbatore Main Branch.

¶35

ii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mathew Varghese Vs. M. Amritha Kumar and Ors., AIR2015SC50

¶36

iii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and another Vs. M/s. Ashok Saw Mill [AIR 2009 SC 2420]

¶37

iv. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1996 AIR 122,

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

4. Objections of the Respondent bank

¶42

4.1 The respondent bank in their detailed counter inter alia contends that the averments and allegations made by the applicant is false. The present SA is filed for setting aside the Sale certificate dated 22.09.2022, executed by 1^st respondent in favor of 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, registered as Doc.No.8005 of 2022 dated 16.11.2022 before the SRO, Konnur, to the property situated at Old Plot No.12A, New Plot No.54, New Pilliyar Koil Street, Mannurpet Village, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 040.

¶43

4.2 It is submitted that the applicants ought to have filed the SA within 45 days i.e., 08.11.2022 under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the present SA filed by the applicants is barred by limitation. Further, the auction was held on 06.08.2022 pursuant to the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022. Further this Tribunal vide proceedings dated 29.11.2022 had granted a conditional order of Rs.30,00,000/- to be paid on or before 13.12.2022 and the applicants have also filed an SA No.464 of 2022 before DRT II and also obtained a conditional order of payment Rs.50,00,000/- in two instalments. In fact, the applicants have failed to comply with the conditional order granted by the Hon’ble DRT II, hence SA 464 of 2022 filed by the applicant is with an ulterior motive and malafide intention

¶44

4.3 The case of the respondent bank is that M/s. Darshan Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., availed Secured over draft facility of Rs.2,75,00,000/-, Bank

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

guarantee facility of Rs.50,00,000/-, Term Loan of machinery for Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- from the 1^st respondent bank.

¶49

4.4 It is submitted that the applicants have availed financial facility of Rs.4,05,00,000/- which was duly secured by executing following equitable mortgages

¶50

i. Equitable mortgage created by Mr. Anthonysamy N.S. over his residential building situated at No.8, Second Street, Kathuribai Nagar, Avadi, Chennai – 600 024.

¶51

ii. Equitable mortgage created by Mr. Kanikairaj P, Mrs. B.P.Selvi and Mrs. B.P.Prema over the residential building situated at Plot No.54, (Old No.12A), New Pillayar Koil Street, Mannurpet, Chennai – 600 050

¶52

iii. Equitable mortgage created by M/s. Aswin Enterprises, represented by its proprietor Mr Kanikairaj over its factory land and building situated at Plot No.125, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 052.

¶53

4.5 As the borrower M/s. Darshan Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. had committed default in repayment and the loan account was classified as NPA on 24.10.2019. The borrower has failed to liquidate the entire liability and 1^st respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 20.01.2020 calling upon the borrower to discharge their entire liability within the period of 60 days. Even after the receipt of the Demand Notice, the borrowers did not discharge their liability to the 1^st respondent bank.

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

4.6 The 1^st respondent bank has taken symbolic possession of the secured asset on 22.09.2020 and affixed Possession Notice dated 22.09.2020 on the property and also published in two Newspapers on 23.09.2020. Further, the Possession Notice is also served on the borrowers and the bank has filed a Section 14 application in Crl.M.P.No.3906 of 2021 before the Ld. CJM Thiruvallur for taking the physical possession of the property belongs to Mr. Kanikairaj, B.P. Selvi, B.P. Prema and the order came to be passed on 09.12.2021 for taking physical possession of the property.

¶58

4.7 The respondent bank has issued Sale notices on 09.12.2020 and 24.02.2022 fixing the sale to be held on 20.01.2021 and 23.03.2022 which did not taken place for want of bidders. Therefore, the respondent bank has issued 3^rd Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 fixing the sale to be held on 06.08.2022. In fact, the sale was successfully conducted on 06.08.2022 and after the receipt of entire sale consideration the respondent bank has issued Sale certificate dated 22.09.2022 registered as Doc.No.8005 of 2022 in favor of the successful bidder.

¶59

4.8 Though the applicants have obtained a conditional order in IA No.1608 of 2022 in SA 464 of 2022 before DRT II Chennai dated 13.09.2022 was not complied by the applicant. Further the secured asset was mortgaged in favor of the 1^st respondent as collateral security by Mrs. B. P. Selvi, Mr. B.P. Kanikairaj, Mrs. D. Prema and the applicants failed to inform the death of the guarantor Mrs. B.P. Selvi to the respondent bank.

¶60

SA No.484/2022

¶61

7 26.03.2026

¶62

4.9 The applicants failed to inform the death of Mrs. B.P. Selvi to the respondent bank even after the receipt of 1^st Sale notice. The legal heirs of the deceased guarantor Mr. B.P. Kanikairaj and Mrs. B.P. Prema have received the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 and the sale was held on 06.08.2022. The OTS proposal given by the applicants was rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 26.08.2022. Hence, the respondent bank has not caused any legal infirmity in issuing the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022. Furthe the respondent bank has issued clear 15 days Sale notice as per Rule 9(1) of the SIE Rules and also affixed on the schedule property and published in two Newspapers.

¶63

4.10 The respondent bank submits that the applicant has lost their right of redemption under Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act and Sale certificate is also issued in favor of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent who were the successful bidders of the sale conducted on 06.08.2022. The respondent bank has relied on the following Judgments:

¶64

i. Prestige Lights Vs. SBI, as reported in 2007, Vol.8, SCC Page 449

¶65

ii. L & T Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Trishul Developers as reported in 2020 (10) SCC Online Page No.659

¶66

iii. ARCE Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, as reported in 2022 (2) SCC Page 221.

¶67

Therefore, the respondent bank has followed all the measures as contemplated under the Act and prays for dismissal of the present SA.

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶72

5.1 It is discernible from the records that applicant is the legal heir of the guarantor who had created security interest by way of creating equitable mortgage over the schedule property situated at Plot No.125, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 052 to the credit facilities availed by the borrower.

¶73

5.2 Due to default in the repayments, the loan account of the borrowers was classified as NPA on 24.10.2019 and the respondent bank has issued Section 13(2) dated 20.01.2020 to the borrowers which is not disputed by the applicants herein. Even after the receipt of Demand Notice, the applicants have failed to discharge their entire liabilities.

¶74

5.3 The applicants have raised a specific contention that the respondent bank has initiated the measures against the Deceased guarantor Mrs. B. P. Selvi is duly countered by the respondent bank that the guarantor Mrs. B.P. Selvi was deceased on 21.06.2020 and Mr. B.P. Kanikairaj and Mrs. Prema are the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor who are duly represented.

¶75

5.4 It is pertinent to note that the applicants have not informed about the death of Mrs. B.P. Selvi to the respondent bank which is not supported by any documents. In fact, the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor Mrs. B. P. Selvi are Mr. B.P. Kanikairaj and Mrs. Prema. The

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

legal heirs of the deceased guarantor are necessary party in the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 which was duly affixed on the schedule property and published in two Newspapers as evident from the photograph of affixture and paper publications produced at Page No.15 to 17 of the respondent’s counter. In spite of receipt of Section 13(2) Demand Notice by legal heirs as mortgagor has not intimated/ communicated about the death of Mrs. B.P. Selvi to the respondent bank. Hence, the bank has issued notice to the guarantors.

¶80

5.5 The question is whether the secured creditor is required to issue fresh notice under the SARFAESI Act on the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor Mrs. B.P. Selvi. The Tribunal places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High court in the case titled Abhijith B. v. Bank of

¶81

Maharashtra and Ors where it is held that B ank's Right to recover becomes absolute once demand notice is served in borrower's lifetime, fresh notice to legal heirs is not needed. In the instant matter the legal heirs of Mrs. B.P. Selvi has received the Section 13(2) Demand Notice as mortgagor and legal heirs who are applicants in the SA. As they are duly served as legal heirs and even only the 1/3 share of Mrs. B.P. Selvi is inherited by applicant herein. Hence there is no requirement to issue fresh notice to legal heirs and Section 13(2) Demand Notice and Section 13(4) Possession Notice are validly served.

¶82

5.6 Evidently, the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor Mrs. B.P. Selvi i.e., Mr. B.P. Kanikairaj, Mr. B.P. Prema were made as a necessary party in the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 and failed to inform the death of Mrs.

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

B.P. Selvi to the respondent bank. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that the respondent bank has initiated measures against the deceased guarantor Mrs. B.P. Selvi is not sustainable.

¶87

5.7 It is an admitted fact that the applicant has received the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 on 22.07.2022 as mentioned in the 1^st grounds at Page No.5 of the present SA. The issue before the Tribunal is whether the present SA challenging the Sale certificate dated 22.09.2022 is within the period of 45 days. Admittedly, the applicant ought to have filed the SA on 08.11.2022 and evidently SA is filed on 18.11.2022 with a delay of 10 days in filing.

¶88

5.8 The Tribunal had posed a question to the applicant about the limitation in not filing the present SA within the period of 45 days then the applicant had sought time to produce judgments on the delay which is even recorded in the proceedings dated 15.10.2025 which is extracted hereunder:

¶89

Both the counsels are present in I and II round. Counsel for applicant has filed the present SA challenging the sale certificate dated 22.09.2022 and admittedly the present SA is filed on 18.11.2022. The applicant ought to have filed the SA on 08.11.2022 and there is a delay of 10 days. Counsel seeks time to rely on the judgments for the delay. At the request of the applicant counsel, list the matter on 05.12.2025.

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

5.9 On verification of the case papers, it is seen that the applicant has not filed any delay application to condone the delay in challenging the Sale certificate dated 22.09.2022 in spite of opportunity being given by this Tribunal. However, the applicant has not even filed the judgments in support of the issue of limitation as undertaken vide proceedings dated 15.10.2025.

¶94

5.10 Before going into the averments made by the applicants in the present SA, the Tribunal would adjudicate the issue of limitation and the maintainability of the present SA.

¶95

5.11 Considering the applicant’s contention that sale certificate is registered on 16.11.2022 and the SA filed on 18.11.2022 is in within the period of 45 days, The records reflects that the applicants though had received the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 which is served on 22.07.2022 did not challenge the sale notice within 45 days, but allowed the auction to be held on 06.08.2022 and only when the Sale certificate is issued to the successful bidder on 22.09.2022 has challenged the Sale certificate on various grounds without challenging the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 and Sale held on 06.08.2022.

¶96

5.12 It is pertinent to note that any measures is required to be challenged under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within the period of 45 days from the date of the measure. Evidently, the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 is not challenged inspite of receipt within the period of 45 days and the Sale certificate dated 22.09.2022 is also not within the

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

period of 45 days. Further the Sale certificate alone cannot be challenged as the Sale certificate is not a measure and it is only a consequential measure after the property is sold. This view of the Tribunal is supported by the order of the Hon’ble DRAT in Union Bank of India & Other Vs. Benoy A. S. & Ors in RA SA 186/2018 dated 22.08.2022 where it is held that

¶101

“The sale certificate alone cannot be challenged as sale certificate is not a measure and it is only consequential measure after the properties sold. Thus, it is evident that the applicant has not made out a case for interfere with the sale notice dated 01.09.2021, on the other hand the respondent bank has established the due compliance measures taken and the Sale Certificate is also issued. The applicant having lost right of the redemption have frustrated the matter without any bonafides which is highly depreciated.”

¶102

5.13 The applicants have filed SA with a delay of 10 days and failed to even file an application for condonation of delay and also failed to file the judgments on limitation in support of their case as undertaken by the applicant and the liberty granted by the Tribunal vide proceedings dated 15.10.2025.

¶103

5.14 Now, considering the delay application, the Tribunal is posed with the question whether the Tribunal can condone the delay under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act?

¶104

For appreciation of the facts Section 17(1) is extracted as under: -

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

Section 17(1):

Application against measures to recover secured debts (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this Chapter, [may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken:

¶110

[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.]

¶111

[Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section (1) of section.17.]

¶112

5.15 A reading of the above provision it is palpable that there is no

¶113

provision made by the Parliament for condonation of delay in approaching the DRT against the measures, no matter whatever be the cause and howsoever justifiable it may sound. Unless power to condone delay is legislatively granted expressly or by inference, the Tribunal cannot condone delay. It is the indication of Parliament that one who wants to have redressal must knock the doors of DRT within 45 days and subsequently those doors should permanently stand closed. In other words, law does not come to the aid of those who are sleepy & late.

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

5.16 Thus, it is clear that any person aggrieved by any measures under Section 13[4] is required to approach the Tribunal under Section 17 within 45 days from the date of the measure. Evidently, the present SA is challenging sale certificate dated 22.09.2022 is not within the period of 45 days and the same is filed with a delay.

¶118

5.17 This view of the Tribunal is confirmed by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Bank of Baroda – Vs.Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd, reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 671 , at para 12, observed that a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act is provided for quick enforcement of the security is as under:

¶119

“ The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcore v. Union of India and Anr. this Court held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. It is unfortunate that proceedings where a property that has been brought to sale and third-party rights created under the provisions of the Act, have remained inconclusive even after a decade.”

¶120

5.18 Further the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Akshat Commercial Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kalpana Chakroborty has taken view that Section 17 is mandatory and therefore the question of condoning the delay does not arise. If the Parliament intended that DRT should have power to condone delay, it would have enacted a provision like Section 5 of Limitation Act to

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

SARFAESI Act. As it consciously chosen not to do it clearly emphasis the purpose of the SARFAESI Act.

¶125

5.19 The Tribunal is of the view that DRT has no power to condone delay in an application under Section 17 of the Act, as it is a special law for speedy recovery of money due to bank in enforcing the security available to them is reinforced at para 65 of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors [Mumbai][P] Ltd., reported in [2024] 2 SCC 1 at para 65 which is reproduced here under:

¶126

“The SARFAESI Act is a special law containing an overriding clause in comparison to any other law in force. The SARFAESI Act is a special law of recovery with a paradigm shift that permits expeditions recovery for the banks and the financial institutions without intervention of Courts. If the general law is allowed to govern in the manner as sought to be argued by the borrowers, it will defeat the very object and purpose….”

¶127

5.20 Therefore, it is obvious that when a special legislation grants aright of action it is subject to certain conditions and create a forum for its implementation, that right becomes exercisable on satisfying such conditions and not otherwise and Limitation period is one such condition.

¶128

5.21 Additionally, the delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds and in support of its view, the reliance is placed on the Judgement of

¶129

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Lingeswaran Vs. Thirunagalingam where it is observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed, if it is found that the delay is

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. The court also observed "The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. In the instant matter the applicant has not filed an application to condone the delay in challenging the measure.

¶134

5.22 In other words, the statutory time of 45 days provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFEASI Act is mandatory and no discretion has been conferred upon the DRT to extend such period. It is pertinent to note that the Securitization Act is for quick enforcement of the security interest created favoring the respondent bank for the recovery of the amount due.

¶135

5.23 Further the applicants have failed to challenge the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 nor the sale held on 06.08.2022 and challenged only the Sale certificate dated 22.09.2022 which is registered on 16.11.2022. Hence, the Sale notice dated 20.07.2022 and Sale held on 06.08.2022 and Sale certificate dated 22.09.2022 are held as valid measures initiated by the respondent bank under the Acts and Rules made there under. Further, the applicant has filed the present SA on 18.11.2022 challenging the Sale certificate dated 22.09.2022 and also challenged the Section 14 orders dated 09.12.2021, 29.12.2021, 27.04.2022.

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

Resultantly the present SA dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶140

Sd/-

¶141

(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶142

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 26^th day of March, 2026)

¶143

ANNEXURES

¶144

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT

¶145

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Memorandum of Application dated 18.11.2022	A-1
2.	Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 20.01.2020	A-2
3.	Sale Notice dated 20.07.2022	A-3
4.	Postal Cover dated 20.07.2022	A-4
5.	Paper publication dated 21.07.2022	A-5
6.	Postal tracking report dated 23.07.2022	A-6
7.	Sale Certificate dated 22.09.2022	A-7
8.	EC showing registration date 16.11.2022	A-8
9.	Vakalath dated 18.11.2022.	A-9

¶146

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

¶147

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Document No.
1.	Photocopy of the death certificate of Mr. B. I. Philip dated 04.02.2020	R-1
2.	Photo copy of the legal heirship certificate of Mr. B. I. Philip dated 29.04.2010	R-2
3.	Photocopy of the letter by the borrower dated	R-3

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026

4.	08.03.2021 Photocopy of the letter by the borrower dated 10.03.2021	R-4
5.	Photocopy of the letter by the borrower dated 04.05.2022	R-5
6.	Photocopy of the letter by the 1^strespondent dated 30.05.2022	R-6
7.	Photocopy of the sale notice by the 1^st respondent dated 20.07.2022	R-7
8.	Photocopy of the affixture of sale notice by the 1^strespondent dated 20.07.2022	R-8
9.	Photocopy of the publication of sale notice by the in English and Vernacular Dailies dated 21.07.2022	R-9
10.	Photocopy of the AD card towards proof of service of sale notice and returned covers dated 21.07.2022	R-10
11.	Photocopy of the auction bid form dated 01.08.2022	R-11
12.	Photocopy of the auction proceedings dated 06.08.2022	R-12
13.	Photocopy of the letter by the borrower dated 06.08.2022	R-13
14.	Photocopy of the sale confirmation letter dated 08.08.2022	R-14
15.	Photocopy of the letter by the 2^ndand 3^rd respondents dated 23.08.2022	R-15
16.	Photocopy of the letter by the 1^strespondent to 2^ndand 3^rdrespondents dated 23.08.2022	R-16
17.	Photocopy of the letter by the 1^strespondent dated 26.08.2022	R-17
18.	Photocopy of the letter by the borrower dated 07.09.2022	R-18
19.	Photocopy of the letter by the 1^strespondent dated 20.09.2022	R-19
20.	Photocopy of the Sale certificate by the 1^st respondent dated 22.09.2022	R-20

¶152

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶153

Residential land building situated at S.No.14/15A & 14/15B, Old Plot No.12A, New Plot No.54, New Pillaiyar Koil Street, Mannurpettai Village, Chennai Ambattur Taluk (extent of land 1170 sq.ft., building with ground

SA No.484/2022

26.03.2026