1. This Appeal is preferred by Judgment Debtor No.4 whose application to set aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC was dismissed by the executing Court.

2. The said application E.A.No.498 of 2002 was moved to set aside the sale held on 17.06.2002 by impleading the decree holder alone as a party to the application. Undoubtedly, the auction purchaser who has purchased the property and who deposited the sale consideration was not impleaded to E.A.No.498 of 2002. The executing Court has rightly noticed the same as a fundamental defect amounting to non-joinder of necessary party and the same is taken as one of the reasons for rejection of E.A.No.498 of 2002.

3. In order to get over the said defect, the C.M.P.No.30119 of 2003 is filed impleading the said auction purchaser as a proposed party-respondent No.2 in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The application for impleadment in C.M.P.No.30119 of 2003, though coming up along with the C.M.A., was not ordered in the C.M.A. However, on the last date of hearing and as on today when the C.M.A. is heard, Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel representing the auction purchaser, was heard and as such the C.M.P.No.30119 of 2003 de