submitted that enquiry under section 81 of the Act was conducted as against the petitioner's husband C.Selvarasu and six others for the alleged irregularities in the Nangavalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society and a decree has been passed as against those employees of the Society, however, the schedule mentioned properties in the sale notices are the petitioner's self-acquire properties and they are in no way connected with her husband, but the same were brought for sale. He would further submit that the third respondent had not given any opportunity of hearing and also failed to communicate the orders to the petitioner and the petitioner has also filed a writ petition as against the order of attachment passed by the respondents in W.P.No.13477 of 2020 and the same was disposed of by this court on 28.9.2020 directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for lifting the order of attachment within a period of four weeks from the date of that order. The petitioner claims that the said order of this court was communicated to the respondents on 15.10.2020 and the same was received on 19.10.2020, but without considering the orders of this court, the impugned sale notices in form 8 and 9 were issued on 12.11.2020 and 11.12.2020. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent, while considering her application initiated under Rule 135, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided and Rule 112 prescribes certain mode of for issuing summons, but the conditional order of attachment was passed without any notice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the order dated 27.10.2020 was communicated to the petitioner only on 24.11.2020.
