ORDER 1. This Misc.Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the impugned order dated dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, in the proceeding initiated by the petitioner under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the SARFAESI Act). 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this Mis. Petition are to the effect : (a) Petitioner financial institution invoked section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the outstanding dues against private respondents due to default in repayment of debts. Thereafter invoking section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner made efforts to take possession of the properties mortgaged for realisation of the debt. (b) Having failed to take possession, the petitioner approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. (c) The Chief Judicial Magistrate declined to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for physical possession of the properties named in the application purportedly for the reason the petitioner failed to prove service of notice upon the private respondents/borrowers as contemplated under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act read with rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, inasmuch as the petitioner did not produce the dispatch register to show the number by which notices were issued and received by the borrowers. The CJM sought to justify the aforesaid reasoning with the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2011 Bombay 163. 3. Shri Vivek Jain with Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner while taking exception to the impugned order submits that the CJM has misdirected himself in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as well as failed to consider the requirement of issue of demand notice as contemplated under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 3 of the rules. Further elaborating his submissions, learned counsel submits that requirement of rule 3 of the rules in the context of demand notice as referred to in sub section (2) of section 13 is to place on record the evidence of delivery including hand delivery or transmission of notice at the place where the borrower or his agent, empowered to accept the notice or documents on behalf of the borrower etc. In the instant case, notices to each of the borrowers have been separately issued by the speed post. A copy of the notices is annexed as Annexure P/6 at page 87 of the petition. Besides, the envelop containing the said notices bore separate docket number and date of dispatch, the details of which are quoted below: Raju Hadary S/D/W of Kudrat Ali Rahamat Nagar            Gosipura Steshan Drp Laeen Lashkar Madhya Pradesh 474012 SAR-2882 28.5.2022 Notice dated 25.5.2022 RW 9421562071N Raju Hadary Survey No. 365, 367, 369 Ward No. 38, Village Kota Lashkar Gwalior 474012 SAR-2882 28.5.2022 Notice dated 25.5.2022 RW 942156198IN Raju Beverage S/D/W of Shiv Nagar Opposite Kreshar Colony Ghosipura Gwalior 474012 SAR-2882 28.5.2022 Notice dated 25.5.2022 RW 942156184IN Meenu Haideri S/D/W of Raju Haideri Rahmat Nagar Gosipura Steshan Drp Laeen Lashkar Madhya Pradesh 474012 SAR-2882 28.5.2022 Notice dated 25.5.2022 RW 942156175IN 4. That apart, from page 94 to 97 of the Misc. Petition, the postal track details of each of the noticees supplied by the department of Post, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, clearly indicate that each of the noticees was served with the notice. These documents were annexed alongwith the application filed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CJM. The CJM ignored these documents and curiously justified the impugned order with the reason that dispatch register of issue and service of notice upon the respondents borrowers were not produced. 5. Learned counsel submits that the CJM did not act in accordance with law while exercising jurisdiction under section14 of the SARFAESI Act as he had altogether ignored the requirement of rule 3 of the rules and the conclusive evidence produced (discussed above) regarding dispatch and service of notice upon the borrowers. As a result, it is a case of refusal to exercise jurisdiction in an arbitrary and illegal manner. As a result, it is a case of refusal to exercise jurisdiction in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Therefore, this Court may invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order and direct the CJM to proceed with the application filed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. Despite service of notice to the respondents through the Court and by Dasti, none of them have entered appearance either in person or through advocate. Under such circumstances, this Court deems fit to proceed with the case and dispose of the instant Misc. Petition. 7. The SARFAESI Act has been enacted to facilitate banks and financial institutions to take possession of securities and to sell them without interventions of the courts as the past experience showed that the existing legal framework related to commercial transactions had not kept pace with the changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms. This had resulted in slow place of recovery of defaulting loans and mounting levels of non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions. The banks and financial institutions unlike international banks did not have power to take possession of the securities and sell them for want of legal provisions. As such, the scheme of the Act is to empower the banks and financial institutions to sell the non performing assets and realise the bank dues outstanding to the credit of the borrowers. 8. Section 14 incorporated in the SARFAESI Act appears to be with an intention to ensure and facilitate physical possession of such non performing assets and other mortgaged properties of the defaulting borrowers, where bank and financial institutions failed to take possession of such assets as provided for under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. 9. The authorities prescribed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are required to act diligently and promptly in the matter of taking possession of non performing assets or mortgaged property, for which application is filed by the secured creditors; indeed, the prescribed authority is required to ensure that requirement of service of demand notice is substantially complied with. 10. In the instant case, the evidence placed on record (supra) do prove the fact about dispatch of notice to each of the borrowers/respondents through speed post. The track of each article after dispatch has also been shown to have served upon the addressee with the proof thereof. 10. In the instant case, the evidence placed on record (supra) do prove the fact about dispatch of notice to each of the borrowers/respondents through speed post. The track of each article after dispatch has also been shown to have served upon the addressee with the proof thereof. Under such circumstances, the CJM ought to have appreciated that the requirement of the aforesaid provisions of law is fully complied with. The reasoning of the impugned order to the effect that the register of dispatch and receipt is not produced in our considered opinion is misrably misdirected and upon misconception of the requirement of law without considering the evidence in that behalf produced. 11. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P/2) since is polluted with illegality tantamounting to improper exercise of jurisdiction is hereby quashed with the further direction to the CJM to proceed with the application filed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on merits. With the aforesaid, Misc. petition stands disposed of.