S. Manikumar, J.

1. Possession notice, dated 15/10/2015 and public notice, dated 15/12/2017, are challenged in the instant writ petition, by the borrower, on the grounds inter alia that there was no mortgage with Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai/respondent.

2. Submission has also been made that possession notice, dated 15/10/2015, does not contain the loan details. Petitioner has further contended that in a case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, in the year 2013, Branch Manager, has been arrayed, as first respondent.

3. For the above said reasons, possession notice, dated 15/10/2015 and public notice, dated 15/12/2017, respectively are challenged.

4. Heard Mr. M. Theivakumar learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. Possession notice, dated 15/10/2015, and public notice, dated 15/12/2017, in Dinamani newspaper and Indian Express, dated 15/10/2015, are extracted hereunder:-

“TAMIL”

6. Contention that there was no mortgage with the Bank and that the petitioner is in no way connected with the loan sanctioned by the Indian Overseas Bank, are factual matters, to be proved by adducing evidence before the Tribunal.

7. Statute provides