Inderjjt And Ors. vs State Bank Of Patiala And Ors.

J.M. Malik, J

Counsel for both the parties heard at length. Counsel for the appellants, auction purchasers, submits that the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that service of notice under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act was not affected upon the borrower, Mrs. Sukhpal Kaur, respondent No. 2. Counsel for the appellants submits that registered notice was sent to the borrower, Mrs. Sukhpal Kaur, which was received back with the report that "No house Number is mentioned and the address was incorrect." There is no other evidence that the Notice under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act was ever served upon Mrs. Sukhpal Kaur.

Consequently it stands established without doubt that service of notice under Section 13(2) was never affected upon the respondent No. 2. Consequently the order passed by the Trial Court can not be faulted on this ground.

The Counsel for the respondent Bank has also invited my attention towards the fact that the sale notice was published on 9th February, 2006 and the sale was conducted on 17.2.2006. The requisite period of 30 days for selling the property was not granted. Consequently the mandatory provision of law was given the go by. Therefore, it appears that the application was rightly allowed by the learned Trial Court.

Consequently, I hereby dismiss the appeal. Parties are left to bear their own costs. However, nothing will debar the appellants to participate in the fresh auction proceedings. The appellant is directed to comply with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court regarding the restoration of the possession. Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and another copy be sent to the learned DRT.