ORDER This application is at the instance of the judgment debtors and is directed against the judgment and order dated June 17, 2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Kolkata in S.A. No.487 of 2013 thereby rejecting an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 2. The petitioners are the debtors and they availed the credit facilities from the opposite party/bank. They made repayment of loan to some extent but not entirely, and accordingly the bank had to take recourse under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Accordingly, possession of the mortgaged property was taken up and it was duly advertised. Subsequently, the creditors filed an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 4. Mr. Bidyut Kr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Reserve Bank of India has provided guidelines for one time settlement of the loan and accordingly, certain guidelines have been given for arriving at a solution in respect of the loan and thus, he has relied on the decision of M/s. Sardar Associates & Ors. v. Punjab & Sindh Bank & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 218 particularly the Paragraph Nos. 18, 23 & 29. He has contended that the one time settlement should have been duly considered by the bank on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 5. In the instant case, without following that settlement formula, the bank took possession of the property and such possession is also not in accordance with law. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has failed to appreciate this aspect. In fact, his client has made considerable payment for liquidation of loan. So, the possession of the secured asset has not been taken in accordance with law by the concerned bank. So, he has submitted that the impugned order should be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. The Debts Recovery Tribunal has failed to appreciate this aspect. In fact, his client has made considerable payment for liquidation of loan. So, the possession of the secured asset has not been taken in accordance with law by the concerned bank. So, he has submitted that the impugned order should be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. M. Rahaman, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party has contended that the petitioners were provided with the statement of accounts to show the quantum of dues from them to the bank and in reply to the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioners sent a letter dated December 18, 2012 requesting the bank to permit them to repay the dues in small weekly instalments and also deposited 10 cheques amounting to Rs.25.50 lakhs. But, at that time no irregularities were pointed out against the steps under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act and the bank also replied to that letter by their letter dated December 28, 2012. So, the mere irregularities as pointed out under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act, prove that these are nothing but afterthoughts. Even, the subsequent letters issued to the debtors indicate that the debtors were to repay the loan and the said notice under Section 13(2) was not denied at all subsequently. 7. Upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that several correspondences were made with regard to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act and the said notice was duly tendered to the petitioners, but, when the notice was refused by the persons under occupation of the premises in question, the same was affixed on the conspicuous part of the said premises. Therefore, the notice was duly served in presence of the occupiers of the secured assets and so, the 45 days for preferring an appeal under Section 17 of the said Act will be counted from the date of service of the notice by affixation and not from the date when the matter got advertised. 8. So, the learned Trial Judge, in my view, has rightly opined that the contentions raised by the petitioners are nothing but afterthoughts. 8. So, the learned Trial Judge, in my view, has rightly opined that the contentions raised by the petitioners are nothing but afterthoughts. If there was any irregularity in the notice under Section 13(2), it could have been pointed out in the subsequent correspondences between the parties, but, it was not done. 9. So, far as the settlement is concerned. I find that as per materials on record some post-dated cheques were issued but, all the cheques were not honoured, some of them had been bounced for non-availability of the fund. The loan amount had been described as NPA on June 30, 2012 as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and as such, steps had been taken for recovery of the loan under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 10. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal has passed an elaborate order discussing all the relevant points and the said order does not suffer from want of jurisdiction at all. According to the provisions of Section 18 of 2002 Act, an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal, within the specified time, form the date of receipt of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under certain terms and conditions. That recourse is to be followed if the petitioners have any grievance against the order the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 11. The decision cited by Mr. Banerjee, with due respect to him, in my view, cannot be entertained after June 30, 2012 when the said account was classified as NPA. 12. Accordingly, in my view, this application is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. 13. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 14. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. Petition dismissed.