JUDGMENT On 13.1.1971, i. e. prior to the Amending Act of the Civil Procedure Code 1976 came into force, a suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent Maganlal for possession of a portion of Khasra No. 722/1, total area 0.30 acres, which is the suit land, on the allegation that the plaintiff Maganlal purchased Khasra No. 722/1 from one Durga Prasad by registered sale deed dated 16.5.1955 (Ex. P-1). After purchase of this land, he sold 4 decimals to one Shikhar Chand and remained in possession of the rest of the land, when on 26.12.1970 the defendants/appellants encroached upon 2 decimals of land and started construction of a house over it. As possession taken by the defendants was illegal, the suit was filed for possession of the suit land on the basis of the title of the plaintiff. In defence, it is the case of the defendants/appellants that there was a decree passed in favour of Abdul Hakim and in execution of that decree against Ganpat and others the suit property was auctioned and they purchased the suit property along with other properties in a Court auction held in the year 1965 and they were put in possession in view of the Court auction and are in possession of the property in their own right. It is further the case of the defendants that no objection was taken at the time of auction sale or while sale certificate was being issued in favour of the appellants on 15.2.1966 and, therefore, the suit as it is filed, is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rules 89, 90 and Rules 97 and 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff and, therefore, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. The main question for determination in this appeal is whether the civil suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable in the absence of any objection raised by him either under Rule 89 or 90 of Order 21 or taking recourse to Rules 97 and 98 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The main question for determination in this appeal is whether the civil suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable in the absence of any objection raised by him either under Rule 89 or 90 of Order 21 or taking recourse to Rules 97 and 98 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other objection which has been raised before the first appellate Court is that in the absence of the judgment debtor or the decree holder being made parties to the suit, the sale certificate issued in favour of the appellants/defendants cannot be set at naught in a civil suit filed by the plaintiff. In Shesh Kumar v. Kesho (1980 JLJ 336), a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that the right to institute a suit under the old rule had arisen before the commencement of the amending Act of the Civil Procedure Code, i.e. Civil Procedure Code Amending Act 1976, which came into force on the 1st of February 1977, it would be preserved under section 6 of the General Clauses Act read with sub-section (2) of section 97, even though it is not covered by clause (q) of that sub-section. Thus, the right to institute a suit, which existed prior to the Amending Act came into force, was held to be saved by the Division Bench of this Court. Here in this case the suit was filed on 13.1.1971, i. e. prior to the Amending Act of 1976 was brought into force. Thus, according to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Shesh Kumar's case (supra) I hold that the civil suit, as it was filed by the plaintiff, is maintainable. It may further be seen that even the sales made under Court auction are governed by the principles of caveat emptor. In the Court auction also the right, title and interest of the judgment debtor is sold and what is acquired by the auction purchaser is the right, title and interest of judgment debtor in the property. If the judgment debtor has no right, title or interest in the property, the auction purchaser also does not get any right title or interest. If the judgment debtor has no right, title or interest in the property, the auction purchaser also does not get any right title or interest. All that is guaranteed under the Court auction is that the purchaser shall have the right and interest, whatever that may be, of the judgment debtor and the judgment debtor shall not recover back the properties sold. As the auction purchaser gets the right, title and interest of the judgment debtor in an auction purchase, the third party is within its rights to claim possession on the basis of the title he has acquired prior to the auction sale of the properties, if the interest in the property auctioned is already transferred in favour of the third party. Thus, there is nothing left which could be transferred by auction, even though it is a sale in Court auction. The plaintiff has alleged that he had purchased the suit property much prior to the Court auction and therefore the interest in the suit property will not be transferred in the Court auction and the judgment debtor will not have any interest in the property at the time of Court auction. The third party is also justified and within its rights to institute a suit for possession on the basis of his title and to show that the property of which possession has been taken by the auction purchaser does not confer any title in him and, therefore, he does not have any right to retain that property. In view of this also, the suit as it is filed, by the plaintiff for possession on the basis of his title is maintainable. It is pertinent to note that by the amendment in the Civil Procedure Code by Amending Act of 1976 sub-rule (4) has been added to Rule 92 of Order 21, C.P.C. whereby when a third party challenges the judgment debtor's title by filing a suit against the auction purchaser, the decree holder and the judgment debtor are made necessary parties to the suit. When the suit was filed in the year 1971 there was no such rule and this rule was added subsequently, after institution of the suit and, therefore, when the suit as it was filed by the plaintiff, it was not necessary for him to implead the judgment debtor or the decree holder as necessary parties to the suit by application of Order 21, Rule 94 (4) C.P.C. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, by upholding the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. Counsel's fee according to schedule, if certified.