1. In this Petition, filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek to challenge an Order dated 22nd of February, 2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar in an application moved by the Respondent - Bank under S.14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the Act of 2002").

2. The impugned Order has been assailed by the Petitioners, primarily, on the ground that the application which was filed by the Respondent - Bank purportedly under S.14 of the Act of 2002 was against a dead person and, therefore, not maintainable.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that one of the original borrowers, namely, Abdul Aziz Sofi passed away on 24th of July, 2023, whereas, the application under S.14 of the Act of 2002 was filed on 18th of December, 2023.

4. It is the sole ground on which the impugned Order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been assailed.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent - Bank would submit that there is no requirement under S.14 of the Act of 2002 to issue notice to the borrower or the guarantor as the proceedings under S.14 of the Act of 2002 are, in fact, directed against the secured asset(s). He submits that notice under S.13(2) of the Act of 2002 was issued to the deceased borrower on 7th of March, 2023 during his lifetime and he had almost more than three months to respond to the said notice.

6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the only notice to which a borrower is entitled to is a notice under S.13(2) of the Act of 2002, whereby the borrower is called upon by a notice in writing to discharge in full the liability to the secured creditor within a period of sixty (60) days. In the instant case, admittedly, the deceased borrower - Late Abdul Aziz Sofi or, for that matter, the other co - borrower - Nazir Ahmad Sofi did not discharge their liability towards the Respondent - Bank despite having been served with a notice under S.13(2) of the Act of 2002. In such a situation, the Respondent - Bank was left with no option but to proceed either under sub-section (4) of S.13 or S.14 of the Act of 2002. The Respondent - Bank, in its wisdom, choose to proceed under S.14 of the Act of 2002 and, accordingly, made an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

7. Before we proceed further, we deem it proper to set out S.14 of the Act of 2002 hereinbelow;
"14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset. - (1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him -
(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and
(b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor:
(Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorized officer of the secured creditor, declaring that -
(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application;
(ii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or