M.V. Muralidaran, J.

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed as against the common order and therefore both the C.R.Ps are heard together and disposed.

2. The case of the petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions are that they filed a suit against one K.Babuji in O.S.No.6543 of 1986 and other suit in O.S.No.6542 of 1986 for recovery of money. Both the suits were decreed on 23.07.1987. For realization of decree amounts, the petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petition filed Execution Petitions against K.Babuji and in the said execution petitions order of attachment was made on 22.11.1988. Pending the Execution Petitions one Smt. Vijayalakshmi filed claim petition in E.A. No. 297 of 1991. The said Smt. Vijayalakshmi is none other than the wife of K.Babuji, the Judgment Debtor in the above execution petitions. The said claim petition was dismissed. Against which the said Vijayalakshmi filed appeal in A.S.No.215 of 1999 before the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai and the said appeal was remanded back for fresh disposal. Again after fresh enquiry the claim petition filed by Smt.Vijayalakshmi was dismissed.

3. When the facts are being so, the 1st respondent herein has filed claim petitions in E.A.Nos.3695 of 2004, 3693 of 2004, 3690 of 2004, 3689 of 2004 and 2981 of 2004. The said claim petitions were resisted by the petitioner in both Civil Revision Petitions. After enquiry, the above claim petitions came to be dismissed by common order dated 31.01.2005. Against which the 1st respondent herein filed appeal in A.S.No.203 of 2005 against the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1853 of 2007 and A.S.No.207 of 2005 against the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1778 of 2007. Pending the above appeals, the 1st respondent herein filed five impleading petitions in C.M.P.Nos.42 to 46 of 2005 in A.S.Nos.203 to 207 of 2005.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent herein filed the impleading applications under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC seeking to implead the Executive Engineer of Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the Sub-Registrar of Kodambakkam. The petitioner in both Civil Revision Petitions strongly objected to allow the impleading petitions. However, all the impleading applications were allowed by common order dated 16.11.2006. As against the order allowing the impleading petitions in C.M.P. No. 42 of 2005, the petitioner herein namely M/s. Deepti Financiers filed C.R.P.(NPD)No.1853 of 2007 and as against C.M.P.No.46 of 2005 the petitioner namely M/s. Thakoor Financiers filed C.R.P(NPD)No.1778 of 2007.

5. Whereas the case of the 1st respondent herein is that he has purchased the schedule mentioned property from one S.Prema under a registered sale deed dated 03.03.2004. Originally the schedule mentioned property was purchased by Smt. Vijayalakshmi from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by a virtue of a registered sale deed dated 25.10.1991. After that the said Vijayalakshmi sold the property to the said Prema and she in turn sold the same to the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent herein after coming to know that there is no encumbrance over the said property has purchased the schedule mentioned property. While so, on 26.04.2004 the court amine come to the house of the 1st respondent and informed that the property is being brought to action in the Execution Petition. Thereafter, only the 1st respondent herein came to know that the petitioner in the above CRPs obtained money decree against one K. Babuji. The 1st respondent herein was not aware of the suits filed against the said K. Babuji and decree obtained therein. Since the property was sold by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to Smt. Vijayalakshmi and the said Vijayalakshmi is not a debtor and therefore the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is a just and necessary party to the appeal suits. Like that in the encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar of Kodambakkam, there is no information with regard to the attachment order of the Court in respect of the sch