N. S. VEERABHADRAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS application is by the impleading applicant Sri Mukesh under order 1, Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the CPC to implead as respondent 3 in the present proceedings. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that in the Ex. P. No. 229 of 1988, he purchased the property of the judgment-debtor by depositing an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- and also that a Sale Certificate has been issued in his favour. As against the Sale Certificate issued, the petitioner has filed c. R. P. No. 4029 of 2001 in which the impleading applicant has been arrayed as respondent 3 in the said proceedings. Therefore, he is a proper and necessary party in this petition, as he has an interest in the property. Accordingly, prayed to allow the application by impleading him as respondent 3. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed objection statement stating that the impleading applicant was not a party in the execution proceedings and further to the application filed before the lower Court for setting aside the dismissal of the execution petition. It is only in the execution petition which ad been dismissed for non-prosecution and has been restored to file. Therefore, the impleading applicant cannot be impleaded as a party in the above petition, though he is an auction purchaser. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel Sri G. S. Vishweswara for the impleading applicant contended that it is no doubt true that the present applicant is not a party in Ex. P. No. 229 of 1988 when the execution petition was dismissed on 5-8-2000. The said execution came to be restored on 14-6-2001, thereafter, in pursuance of the execution proceedings, the property in question was put to auction in which the present applicant has purchased the property. Therefore, for all purposes, he becomes an interested person in the property as the Court has issued Sale Certificate in his favour, after depositing an amount of Ks. 10,50,000/ -. Secondly, contended that, in case if the applicant is not permitted to come on record and for any reason if the civil revision petition were to be allowed, virtually it affects his valuable right which he has acquired by virtue of sale Certificate issued in his favour. Therefore, the applicant is a person entitled to come on record. 10,50,000/ -. Secondly, contended that, in case if the applicant is not permitted to come on record and for any reason if the civil revision petition were to be allowed, virtually it affects his valuable right which he has acquired by virtue of sale Certificate issued in his favour. Therefore, the applicant is a person entitled to come on record. Thirdly he contended that, by reason by explanation 2 of Section 47 of the CPC, he has got a right so assert so as to come on record. Accordingly, prayed to allow the application. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Sri H. B. Datar, vehemently contended that the present applicant is not a party in the execution proceedings at the time of its dismissal as well as restoration of the petition. Therefore, as on the day of restoration of execution petition, the present applicant did not have any interest in the property. Therefore, he cannot come on record. Secondly, contended that the provisions of Explanation 2 of Section 47 of the CPC are not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the impleading application. ( 6 ) IN the light of the submissions, the point for consideration that arises is:"whether the applicant is a proper and necessary party? If so, entitled to come on record". ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the decree-holder United Western Bank limited took out execution for sale of the property of the petitioner in ex. P. No. 229 of 1988. The said execution petition came to be dismissed on 5-8-2000, on the ground that the verified statement was not filed as contemplated under Order 21, Rule 66 (3} of the CPC. It is further seen that the Bank filed an application for restoration of the execution petition. The Executing Court having satisfied itself with the reasons assigned, by its order dated 14-6-2001 restored the execution petition. It is thereafter the applicant participated in the auction and he being the highest bidder deposited an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- and a Sale Certificate was issued in his favour by the Executing Court. The judgment- debtor being aggrieved by the restoration of the execution petition, filed c. R. P. No. 3983 of 2001 (present petition) questioning the very order of the restoration on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 10,50,000/- and a Sale Certificate was issued in his favour by the Executing Court. The judgment- debtor being aggrieved by the restoration of the execution petition, filed c. R. P. No. 3983 of 2001 (present petition) questioning the very order of the restoration on the ground that it is barred by limitation. At the same time, the judgment debtor has also filed another Revision Petition No. 4029 of 2001 questioning the very auction of the property on the ground that the sale is illegal in which the present applicant has been arrayed as respondent 3. ( 8 ) THE above facts makes it clear that the applicant acquired a right over the property by virtue of Sale Certificate issued in his favour. It is no doubt true that he is not a party in the earlier proceedings. When once the applicant having participated in the auction and purchased the property, for all purposes it has to be held that he has got a legal right irrespective of the result of the revision petitions. In the event, if this civil revision petition for any reason were to be allowed, virtually, it cuts the throat of the applicant. Consequently, the C. R. P. No. 4029 of 2001 stands dismissed. Therefore, in my view, the applicant though not a party in the earlier proceedings, having acquired the property by virtue of Sale Certificate, is a person interested and entitled to come on record. ( 9 ) THE main contention of the learned Counsel Sri M. H. Datar is that:"in an execution proceeding, impleading application cannot be entertained". This submission is without any force for the simple reason that if a person were to acquire a legal right in respect of the disputed property, he is entitled to come on record as a proper and necessary property in all legal proceedings pending before the Court. ( 10 ) IN this case, when the applicant has purchased the property in question and the dispute is a continuing one, such a person is entitled to come on record as a proper and necessary party. It has to be held that there is no bar to implead a person who has got an interest even in the execution proceedings. Therefore, on this ground also, the contention of the learned Counsel is without any force. It has to be held that there is no bar to implead a person who has got an interest even in the execution proceedings. Therefore, on this ground also, the contention of the learned Counsel is without any force. ( 11 ) INSOFAR as the submission of the learned Counsel regarding the applicability of Explanation 2 of Section 47 of the CPC, I feel that it is not an appropriate case to consider the said provision and the same is left open. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the impleading application is hereby allowed directing the revision petitioner to implead the applicant as respondent 3 and to amend the cause-title. --- *** --- .