Judgment The petitioner is secured creditor with whom the properties of the respondents were mortgaged on advancing loan. Since there was significant default on the part of the respondents, the petitioner issued Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). Even then the respondents did neither come forward to discharge the loan nor make any representation as to the payment to the petitioner. Hence this petitioner moved the Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Ootacamand, by filing an application under Section 14 of the Act, praying the court to exercise its power to take possession of the assets belonging to the respondents. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamand, directed to issue notice to the respondents returnable by 31.01.2009. The said order is being challenged before this Court in this revision petition. 2. It is the quintessence of the contention of the petitioner that no notice is contemplated under section 14 of the Act, that the Court below should have acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, more particularly contained in Section 14 of the Act and that issuance of the notice to the respondent is not sustainable. 3. It is beneficial to have extraction of relevant provisions viz., Section 13 and 14 of the Act, for better understanding of the subject: 13. Enforcement of security interest:-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the Court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as nonperforming asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4). (3) ... ... ... ... (3-A) ... ... ... ... (3) ... ... ... ... (3-A) ... ... ... ... (4) In case the borrower failed to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:- (a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; (b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset. ... ... ... ... ... ... 14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset:-(1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of the Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto maybe situated or found to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may, 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. (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provision of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary. (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of this Section shall be called in question in any Court or before any authority." 4. Sub-Section 3 of Section 13 provides for furnishing details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor and Section 3-A to Section 13 of the Act enables the borrower to make representation to the secured creditor, who shall consider and communicate the result to the borrower within one week on receipt of such representation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sankaran would draw attention of this Court to an unreported decision of this Court which came to be passed in C.R.P. PD. No.1559 of 2004 [Sundaram Home Finance Limited v. K. Raja] in which the learned Judge expressed the view that no notice need to be sent to the other side. Relevant portion of the order goes thus: "2. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through Sections 13(2) & (4) and Section 14 of the said Act and contended that, in deciding to grant the relief made to the Court under Section 14 of the said Act, no notice need be sent to the other side. A reading of Section 14 of the said Act do show that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is right. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court so far as it relates to ordering notice to the respondent alone is set aside. The lower Court is directed to act as per the requirement of Section 14 of the said Act immediately on production of a copy of this order. The Revision stands disposed of accordingly." 6. He also placed reliance upon another decision of this Court reported in 2009 (1) CTC 341 [Indian Overseas Bank v. Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd.,] wherein this Court has taken an identical view after following a Division Bench decision of this Court on this point. The extraction of the operative portion of the Division Bench decision as found in the Judgment in Sree Aravindh Steels Limited case (supra) is as follows: 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sundaram Home Finance Limited, rep by its Managerrecovery, Madhavan, 46, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14 v. 1. The Tahsildar, Hosur 2. The District Collector, Krishnagiri, 2007 (2) CTC 1, wherein it is held as follows: 9. The words of the section and the law laid down in Mardia Chemicals case (supra) do not envisage a notice under Section 13(4). Reasons for not accepting the objection are to be communicated before taking measures like taking over possession of the secured assets. This is the fairness that is required of the lender. The words of the section and the law laid down in Mardia Chemicals case (supra) do not envisage a notice under Section 13(4). Reasons for not accepting the objection are to be communicated before taking measures like taking over possession of the secured assets. This is the fairness that is required of the lender. But if the borrower has not responded to the notice under Section 13(2), the lender has no occasion to communicate his reasons, necessarily the tender proceeds to the next stage. The borrower gets a right to challenge the action only after any of the measures contemplated under Section 13(4) have been taken. It is clear from the paragraphs extracted above from Mardia Chemicals case that the communication of the reasons may not be taken to give an occasion to resort to such proceedings which are impermissible under the Act. A person who does not respond to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act should be considered to be aware of the consequences that will follow. In any event, it is not possible to hold that a borrower who has not responded to the notice under Section 13(2) will be entitled to a notice under Section 13(4), whereas, in respect of a borrower who has responded to a notice under Section 13(2) and has had the rejection communicated by the Bank, the Bank can proceed straightaway to take the measures contemplated under Section 13(4). There is no room for visualizing two such courses of action. This will be reading words into the Section, which the legislature had not used. It is not our duty to legislate. The Supreme Court also was aware that "some of the provisions may be a bit harsh for some of the borrowers", yet has not, in its judgment, held that a pre-Section 13(4) notice must be issued. We are unable to read a requirement of such notice either in the Section or in the Judgment." 7. After extraction of the above said portion, this Court has observed that in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, it is held that no notice is necessary to the borrowers and in such a case even though the notice was issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, it is not necessary to give notice to the respondents 1 to 3 to decide the issue. 8. 8. A conjoint reading of Section 13 and 14 of the Act would portray the position that the secured creditor on issuance of notice under Section 13, can enforce the secured interest even without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal and if he intends to take possession of the secured assets, then he may invoke Section 14 of the Act by approaching the jurisdictional District Magistrate for the relief of taking possession through the said court. The procedures laid down in Section 13 and 14 of the Act are unambiguous which would pave way for the secured creditor to take possession of the assets and documents relating to the loan. Sub-section 2 of Section 14 of the Act also provides that the Chief Judicial Magistrate may also take steps to use force as necessary for taking possession and forward the assets to the secured creditor. An important factor has to be borne in mind is that Section 14 of the Act, while providing for taking recourse through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, does not contemplate any adjudication or enquiry after hearing both the parties. Before taking aid of Section 14 of the Act, the secured creditor is expected to have exhausted the procedures contained in Section 13 of the Act. Hence, the legislature thought fit not to incorporate any explicit provision in Section 14 of the Act to issue notice to the borrower nor to adjudicate the matter upon hearing him. In other words, it could be stated that since all the precautionary measures have been suggested and directed to be accomplished by the secured creditor in Section 13 of the Act, the legislature found it appropriate not to include any express requirement for hearing the borrower. The corollary thereof would be, no notice need be sent to the borrower while the Court deals with Section 14 of the Act on an application filed by the secured creditor. In case, if the Court issues notice to the borrower not only it would be out of scope of the provisions adumbrated in Section 14 of the Act but also be unlawful. To put it in a nutshell, since no adjudication nor roving enquiry is needed under Section 14 of the Act, issuance of notice to borrower is alien to the special statute viz., the Act. 9. To put it in a nutshell, since no adjudication nor roving enquiry is needed under Section 14 of the Act, issuance of notice to borrower is alien to the special statute viz., the Act. 9. As adverted to supra, while the intention of the legislature while enacting Section 13 and 14 of the Act is gathered, as the secured creditor might have positively exhausted the procedures contained in Section 13 of the Act, there is no necessity for the secured Creditor to give prior notice to the borrower while moving the application under Section 14 of the Act. As per the consistent view taken by this Court on earlier occasions, it has to be necessarily held that when a petition under Section 14 (1)of the Act is filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrate, it is not incumbent upon the Court to order notice to the borrower and the Court has to follow and perform the procedures as found in Section 14 of the Act so as to enable the secured creditor to have satisfaction of the debt due. 10. In such view of this matter, the order challenged before this Court, directing issuance of notice to the borrower has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. 11. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamand to follow the procedures contained in Section 14 of the Act, in the light of the guidelines formulated by this Court in its decisions. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.