ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by respondent No.1 in case No.RCMS/0076/B-121/2021-22 (Security) whereby the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure P/9) for making necessary correction in the order dated 24.4.2019 (Annexure P/8) has been dismissed seeking following reliefs :--

(i) The order dated 18.11.2021 (Sic 18.10.2021), passed by respondent No.1 in case bearing No.RCMS/76/2021-2020/B-121 (Security) be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure P/9) may be allowed, directing the respondent No.1 for making necessary correction in the main order dated 24.4.2019 (Annexure P/8).

(ii) The respondent No.1 be directed to carry out the necessary corrections in its earlier order dated 24.4.20109 and the description of the property mentioned as 'House On Khasra No.384/1 (k) and 455/2/2, Patwari Halka No.07, Old No.26, Settlement No.359, Oppo, Mangladevi Temple Manawar, District Dhar (M.P.) be corrected as ' House On Khasra No.384/1 (K) and 445/2/2, Patwari Halka No.07, Old No.26, Settlement No.359, Oppo, Mangladevi Temple Manawar District Dhar (M.P.).

(iii) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to provide assistance to the Petitioner bank to take vacant physical possession House on Khasra No.384/1 (K) and 445/2/2 Patwari Halka No.07, Old No.26, Settlement No.359, Oppo. Mangladevi Temple Manawar, Dist. Dhar (M.P.) admeasuring 11619 sq.ft.

(iv) Any other relief in favour of the petitioner that this Court may deem fit, may also be granted. Facts of the case are as under :

2. On 27.10.2015 respondent No.2 obtained financial assistance in the form of cash credit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only), in the name of M/s. Shivkripa Agro Industries, from the petitioner bank. Against the said loan, respondent No.3 stood as guarantor and had mortgaged the property of his own ownership, i.e., House on Khasra No. 384/1 (K) and 445/2/2, Patwari Halka No. 07, Old No. 26, Settlement No.359, Oppo. Mangladevi Temple Manawar, Dist. Dhar (M.P.) admeasuring 11619 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property' / 'mortgaged property').

3. Since the respondent No.2 failed in repaying the said loan amount, the account of Respondent No.2 was declared as NPA on 31.3.2017, and the petitioner bank initiated proceedings for recovery of the loan dues amounting to Rs. 1,99,57,377.93 as on 31.3.2017.

4. The petitioner bank issued a demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, dated 22.09.2017 to all the respondents (No.2 and 3) and the same was served upon them on 27.9.2017.

5. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the petitioner bank took the symbolic possession on 23.1.2018 and also got the same published in the newspapers on 30.1.2018. At the time of issuance of the said demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 22.9.2017 as well as while publication of notice of taking symbolic possession in the English newspaper on 30.1.2018, the Khasra number of the mortgaged property was mentioned correctly i.e. Khasra No. 384 (k) and 445/2/2, whereas in the publication made in the hindi newspaper on 30.1.2018, the publication agency has wrongly mentioned the Khasra No. as 384 (k) and 455/2/2 which is on account of a typographical error.

6. Thereafter, while continuing the recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the Petitioner bank on 19.4.2018 preferred an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the respondent No.1. The said case was registered as case bearing No. 89/B121/2017-2018. At the time of filing the said application under section 14, seeking possession of the mortgaged property, instead of Khasra No. 445/2/2 (of the mortgaged property), Khasra No. 455/2/2 was wrongly mentioned. The said error was on account of a bonafide typographical mistake and was evident on the face of the record.

7. That, the Respondent No.1, after hearing the said case bearing No. 89/B-121/2017-2018, vide