ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, challenging the order dated 23.11.2012 passed in SA 113/2010 by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai.

2. SA 113/2010 was filed by respondents 1 to 5. First respondent died during the pendency of the SA and legal representatives of deceased first respondent were impleded as Respondents 3 to 5. Second respondent Mr. B. Devadoss is the husband of deceased first respondent B. Nirmala. After contest, the said SA was allowed on the ground that there was no proper service of Possession Notice through paper publication and affixture and also there was no service of sale notice through proper paper publication and affixture. Primarily, on these two grounds, SA was allowed. Challenging the order allowing the SA, this appeal is filed by the appellant bank.

3. Learned Counsel for appellant bank submitted that every measure taken gives rise to a separate cause of action for challenge. However, in this case, first and second respondents had not challenged either the possession notice or the sale notice issued by the appellant bank. Even as per the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, possession notice was served through p