P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. The Petitioner Bank is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P6 order passed by the G. J.M., Kozhikode whereby the petition filed under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act seeking to avail the assistance of the learned Magistrate to take possession of the property in question has been turned down, stating that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act served 'physically' upon the defaulter/guarantor who has endorsed the aceptance, is not sufficient so as to constitute proper and valid service under Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition is that a loan was availed by the second Respondent from the Petitioner Bank on 30.3.2007 creating security interest over the property of nearly 7.5 cents of land. But repayments were not effected on time, which made the Bank to declare the account as NPA and issued Ext. PI notice dated 1.7.2009 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The notice was sent by registered post to the Respondents No. 2 and 3, which was accepted by the second Respondent (wife of the third Respondent), as borne by the postal acknowledgement card, while,