JUDGMENT :

Shahzad Azeem, J.

1. The petitioners have called in question the auction sale notice/tender notice issued and published on April, 19 2024 by the respondent-Bank under Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002 (Rules of 2002) made under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and also sale certificate dated June, 07 2024.

2. The controversy on hand lies in short compass. The petitioners have availed loan facility for an amount of Rs. 20.00 lacs vide sanction letter dated Feb, 18 2013 from the respondentBank and said facility was secured by way of hypothecation of stocks and equitable mortgage of immovable property. After some time, the loan account of the petitioners was turned irregular and despite, they were provided multiple opportunities by way of reminders to regularize their loan account but they failed, thus, the account was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) w.e.f March, 31 2017. As a consequence, proceedings under SARFAESI Act came to be initiated and accordingly, demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on April, 04 2018. The petitioner did not turn up and accordingly, possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued followed by proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act came to be initiated. After obtaining the physical possession of the mortgaged property, the respondent-Bank issued and duly published in newspapers auction notices (Tender Cum Sale Notices) under Rule 8(6) of the Rules of 2002 and in pursuance to the third tender notice dated April, 17 2024 duly published on April, 19 2024 in English newspaper, the respondent-Bank received a bid of Rs. 75.00 lacs from respondent No. 4- Mst. Masarat Tabasum.

3. Accordingly, the respondent-Bank confirmed the sale in her favour on May, 17 2024, on receiving full consideration amount and sale certified was also issued on June, 07 2024.

4. At this stage, it is important to note that as per the record, the redemption notice dated March, 25 2024 despite being served and later on, published in Urdu and English dailies on April, 04 2024 and April, 05 2024, respectively, but no steps were taken by the petitioners, therefore, auction was held and subsequently, the respondent-Bank served a notice dated July, 06 2024 upon the petitioners for removal of articles from the secured property. It is further seen from the record that respondent No. 4 being bona-fide purchaser of the property in question and after having paid the entire consideration amount is put in possession of the mortgaged property and respondent-Bank has also issued the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser-respondent No. 4

5. The petitioners have made an attempt to challenge the auction sale notice dated April, 19 2024 and sale certificate dated June, 07 2024 on the ground that the respondent-Bank has observed the procedure under SARFAESI Act in breach, in that, neither notices have been served nor same are published in the newspapers.

6. At the outset, we deem it proper to place on record that the submissions made by the petitioners have been found to be incorrect in view of the record submitted by the respondent-Bank wherein, all the notices shown to have been duly published in English as well as Urdu daily newspapers including same are posted on the given addresses and postal receipts are also preserved by the bank, therefore, the plea of the petitioners that they are not in know of the proceedings is belied by the overwhelming record itself.

7. Respondent No. 4, i.e. auction purchaser also filed objections wherein, inter-alia, it is stated that the petitioners have also filed collusive civil suit in respect of the same property which is pending disposal before the Court of learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Srinagar titled ‘Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat Vs. Aijaz Ahmad Bhat’ and also the petitioners remain successful in obtaining the interim order.

8. The respon