The petitioner has called in question the validity of

the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery

Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (‘DRAT’ for short) in RA(SA)

No.77/2018 produced at Annexure-F whereby DRAT has

allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘DRT’ for short) which

passed the order in SA No.249/2016. By virtue of the

order

at

Annexure-F,

the

Possession

Notice

dated

15.09.2015 was held to be valid and sustainable.

2. The K.S.S.I.D.C. is stated to have executed the

registered lease-cum-sale agreement with respect to Plot

No.11/2 in RS No.415 at Industrial Estate, Gadag, in

favour the second respondent. It is further submitted that

the second respondent is stated to have executed a

- 4 -

memorandum of mortgage by deposit of title deeds with

the respondent-Bank after availing loan of Rs.3,90,000/-.

3. Eventually, on

28.01.2012,

the

K.S.S.I.D.C.-

respondent No.7 is stated to have executed a registered

Sale Seed in favour of the second respondent. On

28.01.2012 on the very same day, Ms.Haseena Begum M.

Lakkundi W/o Malliksab Lakkundi-respondent No.2 is

stated to have sold the property by way of registered sale

deed to respondent No.6 and in turn the respondent No.6

had executed a Sale Seed in favour of the present

petitioner on 28.11.2014. It is stated that the petitioner

had noticed the paper publication dated 08.04.2015 in

‘Vijaya Karnataka,’ Kannada Daily News Paper published

by

respondent

No.1–Bank,

whereby

the

property

purchased by the petitioner was sought to be proceeded

under

Section

13(2)

of

the

Securitization

and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) as

- 5 -

the property was secured for the loan taken by respondent

No.2.

4. The petitioner approached the Debts Recovery

Tribunal at Bangalore, by filing SA No.249/2016. The said

application filed by the petitioner herein before the DRT,

Bengaluru came to be allowed by order dated 20.12.2016

and the notice under Section 13(4) came to be set aside.

As against the said order of DRT dated 20.12.2016,

RA (SA) No.77/2018 filed by the Bank came to be allowed

by DRAT against which the present petition is filed.

5. It is to be noticed that the DRT at the first

instance had allowed the application of the petitioner,

while observing that the first respondent–Bank had not

filed any document to support its case. It was further

observed by DRT that the Bank had merely stated that

loan was advanced only with assurance of mortgage of

property in question. The DRT noticed that no documents

were produced by the Bank in support of their assertion of

- 6 -

mortgage. The said order was taken before DRAT,

Chennai, which however, set aside the order of DRT dated

20.12.2016 while noticing that the documents relating to

mortgage were produced before the DRAT. Reference to

the memorandum of deposit of title deed is found at para-

8 of the said order. The DRAT has specifically observed

that the limitation period available was 12 years and once

action is taken within the period of 12 years from the date

of cause of action, delay within that time ought not to

defeat the right of the Bank. The DRAT rejected the

contention that action was initiated after about 14 years

and concluded that the claim was within the time

prescribed. The DRAT also upheld the validity of

Possession Notice.

6. The contention of petitioner herein is that the

notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act came to be

issued against the petitioner as regards the property of

petitioner on 06.04.2015 as per Annexure-A8 and such

notice which was the foundation for further proceedings

- 7 -

under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act at Annexure-A11

dated 15.09.2015 which was beyond the period of

limitation prescribed. It is contended that the prescription

of limitation under Section 36 of SARFAESI Act is to the

effect that no secured creditor shall be entitled to take all

or any of the measures un