ORDER : S. MANIKUMAR, J. Petitioner, a dealer in Petroleum Products from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation and running an outlet in the name and style of M/s. S.R.P. Agencies, availed cash credit limit of Rs.30,000/- for the working capital and further availed some more financial assistance from Indian Overseas Bank, Salem, 1st respondent. He mortgaged, land as secured asset. For the default in payment, bank filed a suit in OS No.79 of 1991, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. An exparte preliminary decree was passed in favour of the bank on 16.03.1992. Thereafter, final decree was also passed. 2. In 1995 bank initiated execution proceedings. At that stage, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application to set aside the exparte decree, with a delay of 1789 days. Civil Court allowed the condonation petition and granted opportunity to the petitioner/defendant therein to file written statement. Petitioner did not file the written statement. Hence, on 05.08.2003, decree was passed in OS No.79 of 1991, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. 3. On 26.04.2004, bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, followed by the possession notice dated 21.12.2006. Sale notice dated 05.11.2017 was published in two leading newspapers viz., Dinamalar and The Indian Express. In the first sale notice dated 01.03.2017 upset price was fixed at Rs.10.64 Lakhs, but there was no bidder. Second sale notice dated 05.11.2007 was issued and the upset price was reduced and fixed at Rs.8.28 Lakhs. Sale conducted has been confirmed and sale certificate dated 31.12.2007 and 07.01.2008, respectively, were issued to the purchasers of the property mentioned therein. 4. Encumbrance certificate dated 22.01.2008 shows the name of the owner of the property as K.Krishnan, purchaser of the mortgaged property from Indian Overseas Bank. 5. Petitioner has filed SA No.46 of 2008 in March 2008, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, to declare the auction sale held by Indian Overseas Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as invalid, to set aside the auction sale conducted by the bank on 10.12.2007 and to cancel the sale deed executed by the bank on 07.01.2008 and registered on 21.08.2008, in favour of the purchaser. 6. 6. SA No. 46 of 2008 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, has been subsequently, transferred and renumbered as TSA No. 42 of 2008 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Opposing the prayer sought for, bank has filed reply statement. Written submissions have been filed by both parties. Adverting to the rival contentions and the plea on limitation, the delay in filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, vide order dated 29.07.2013, dismissed TSA No.42 of 2008. 7. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed an appeal in RA SA No. 96 of 2014 under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, contending inter alia that issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, cannot fall back on the preliminary decree issued in favour of the bank in O.S.No.79 of 1991 dated 16.03.1992. 8. Before the appellate forum, the appellant has further contended that the valuation of the property was Rs.30 Lakhs, but the bank has undervalued the same at Rs.8.28 Lakhs. Further contention has been made that on 24.01.2008, when the writ petitioner approached the bank, for deposit of Rs.8.28 Lakhs, the same was not accepted. 9. Perusal of the order made in RA SA No.96 of 2014 dated 19.04.2018, shows that in TSA No.42 of 2008, besides impleading the Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Salem as the 1st respondent, one Mr. K.Krishnan, S/o. Kuppan, Dharmapuri, has been shown as 2nd respondent. He has purchased the mortgaged property. Mr. G.Perumal, S/o. Gopal, Dharmapuri Taluk and District has been shown as 3rd respondent. He is the subsequent purchaser, from Mr. K.Krishnan. 10. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the borrower/petitioner, bank, purchaser and subsequent purchaser, vide order dated 19.04.2018, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dismissed the appeal on the grounds inter alia that though, the petitioner had pleaded that he had approached the bank on 24.01.2008, he had not taken any initiative to deposit a sum of Rs.8.28 Lakhs, the auction sale price. 11. Appellate tribunal in RA SA No.96 of 2014 has further held that though valuation of the mortgaged property was pleaded as Rs.30 Lakhs, no document was produced by the petitioner. 11. Appellate tribunal in RA SA No.96 of 2014 has further held that though valuation of the mortgaged property was pleaded as Rs.30 Lakhs, no document was produced by the petitioner. Exparte decree was initially challenged with a delay of 1789 days and in the meanwhile, sale notice was issued on 05.11.2007 and sale was conducted on 12.12.2007. SARFAESI Application 46 of 2008, was filed in March 2008. Appellate tribunal, has also recorded that possession notice dated 21.12.2006 was not challenged. 12. Being aggrieved by the order made in RA SA No.96 of 2014 dated 19.04.2018, on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, instant writ petition is filed. 13. Inviting the attention of this Court to the notice dated 26.04.2004 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, Mr. C.Umashankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said notice had been issued on the basis of the decree dated 16.03.1992, which has been set aside on 28.07.2003. It is the further contention that when there is no decree, initiation of SARFAESI proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 26.04.2004, is invalid, after a long delay of twelve years and that therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds regarding valuation and the offer made by the writ petitioner. Except the above, no other grounds are urged. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. Perusal of the material on record shows that loan has been availed in the year 1985. Suit in OS No. 79 of 1991, has been filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri and that on 16.03.1992, there was a preliminary decree in favour of the bank. Final decree was passed. Bank has initiated execution proceedings in 1995. With a huge delay of 1789 days, petitioner has filed an application to set aside the exparte decree. Decree dated 16.03.1992, has been set aside on 28.07.2003. Even then, petitioner has not filed the written statement. Therefore, subsequently on 05.08.2003, a fresh decree has been passed. 16. After obtaining a decree in OS No.79 of 1991 dated 05.08.2003, bank has issued a notice dated 26.04.2004 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, followed by a possession notice dated 21.12.2006 and sale notice dated 05.11.2007. 17. Even then, petitioner has not filed the written statement. Therefore, subsequently on 05.08.2003, a fresh decree has been passed. 16. After obtaining a decree in OS No.79 of 1991 dated 05.08.2003, bank has issued a notice dated 26.04.2004 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, followed by a possession notice dated 21.12.2006 and sale notice dated 05.11.2007. 17. Contention of the petitioner is solely based on the fact mentioned in the notice dated 26.04.2004, which reads thus. "As a consequence, bank has filed a suit in O.S.No.79 of 1991 at Sub-Court, Dharmapuri for recovery of an aggregate amount of Rs.2,22,368/- from you together with future interest at the rate of 16.5% p.a on CC and 15% on TL with half yearly rest and costs charged on the above securities and the summons on the suit has been served on you and the said suit was decreed on 16.3.1992 for a sum of Rs.2,88,542/- together with interest at the rate of 6% from 16.3.92 to the date of realisation and cost of Rs.18,230.75." 18. Fact that the decree made in OS No.79 of 1991 on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri, has been set aside, as early as on 28.07.2003. Subsequently, suit has been restored and for non filing of written statement, another decree has been passed on 05.08.2003. Within one year, Indian Overseas Bank, 1st respondent, has issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, followed by other measures. 19. Contention of the petitioner, solely based on the above-said factual mistake, in the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, cannot be accepted, as a tenable ground to reach a conclusion that the action taken by the bank is beyond the period of limitation. 20. Perusal of the material on record discloses that property has been sold on 12.12.2007 in favour of Mr. K.Krishnan, S/o. Kuppan, for which sale certificate has been issued. Encumbrance has also been made. Subsequently, the said property has been sold to another person viz., Mr. Thirumal. Sale transactions have concluded in the year 2008 and more than 10 years have lapsed. 21. Though Mr. K.Krishnan, S/o. Kuppan, for which sale certificate has been issued. Encumbrance has also been made. Subsequently, the said property has been sold to another person viz., Mr. Thirumal. Sale transactions have concluded in the year 2008 and more than 10 years have lapsed. 21. Though Mr. C.Umashankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mortgaged properties being agricultural, cannot be brought for auction and that the same would be against Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, we are not inclined to accept the said contention for the reason that the sale has been effected long ago in 2008. There are no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.