V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Challenging an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissing an application for setting aside a sale conducted by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent/Bank.

3. The 2nd respondent is the auction purchaser. He was made a party to the appeal S.A.No.996 of 2017 filed by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. It is stated that despite service of notice, he did not appear before the Tribunal.

4. Even before this Court, notice was ordered to the 2nd respondent/auction purchaser. Though the Court notice returned unserved with an endorsement Not claimed returned to sender, the personal notice sent by the counsel for the petitioner by speed post, appears to have been delivered, as seen from the tracking system. Therefore, we have taken up the writ petition for hearing. But he has not chosen to enter appearance.

5. The petitioners husband availed fa