Judgment ( 1. ) THOUGH the appeal filed by the State Government is barred by limitation but, before entering into the question of limitation, I thought it fit to look into the merits of the matter so that the question of limitation is decided one way or the other. ( 2. ) UNDISPUTEDLY one Fazal Hussain had filed Civil Suit No:1-B/1976 against m/s. Dewas Tyres, the said suit was decreed in favour of Fazal Hussain. However m/s. Dewas Tyres did not pay the suit amount, therefore, plots no. 9, 10 and 16 (c)over which certain construction was raised were put to auction. A sale proclamation was issued and sale was ordered in favour of respondent Rajendra Kumar S/o rambabu Sharma on 9. 5. 1981. ( 3. ) IT is contended by learned counsel for each of the appellant that M/s. Bharat ice and Cold Storage were in possession of the property as lessees of the State government, therefore, they filed certain objections under Order 21 Rule 92 before the learned executing Court. The objections came to be decided against the interest of M/s. Bharat Ice and Cold Storage so also against the State Government as contended by Smt. Anjali Jamkhedkar, learned Panel Lawyer. ( 4. ) IT appears that on 19. 4. 1990 a sale certificate was issued in favour of said rajendra Kumar S/o Rambabu Sharma. M/s. Bharat Ice and Cold Storage through its partner and one Pitambar filed a civil suit on 8. 12. 1994 against Rajendra Kumar the auction purchaser, the State Government so also against the Industries department. Undisputedly in the suit for declaration that the sale was bad the judgment debtor and/or decree holder were not joined as parties. After sometime the State Government and the Industries department made an application for their trans-position as plaintiffs. The application was allowed and the said defendants were trans-posed as plaintiff nos. 4 and 5. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties the learned trial Court dismissed the suit, therefore, the original plaintiffs filed Regular Appeal No. 5-A of 2008 while the other plaintiffs filed Appeal No. 6-A of 2008. After hearing learned counsel for the parties the learned appellate court dismissed both the appeals, therefore, each of the plaintiff have filed Second appeals which have been numbered as S. A. No. 517/2008 and S. A. No. 725/2008. ( 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties the learned appellate court dismissed both the appeals, therefore, each of the plaintiff have filed Second appeals which have been numbered as S. A. No. 517/2008 and S. A. No. 725/2008. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants have submitted that the suit of the piaintiffs is maintainable in view of sub rule 4 of Rule 91 of Order 21 because they are the third parties and they are challenging the title of the judgment debtor. It is aiso submitted that rejection of the objections by the executing Court which were raised by the plaintiffs would enure to the benefit of the respondent no. 1 but, would also provide a cause of action in favour of the appellants to file the suit. It is also submitted that if the property is held by the judgment debtor on lease hold right then the said property could not be sold in auction. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred in view of sub rule 3 of Rule 92 to Order 21. It is also submitted that assuming that the suit was maintainable then too the same was liable to be dismissed under sub rule 4 of Rule 92 of Order 21 because of non-joinder of the decree holder and the judgment debtor who under the statute are required to be joined as necessary parties. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that a perusal of proviso appended to sub rule 1 of rule 92 of order 21 would make it clear that any third party objection are required to be decided first and only thereafter a final order can be passed in the matter. ( 7. ) I have heard parties at length. ( 8. ) SUB Rule 1 of Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides as under: "o. XXI R. 92 :sale when to become absolute or be set aside: (1 ). ( 7. ) I have heard parties at length. ( 8. ) SUB Rule 1 of Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides as under: "o. XXI R. 92 :sale when to become absolute or be set aside: (1 ). Where no application is made under rule 89, rule 90 or rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute: (Provided that, where any property is sold in execution of a decree pending the final disposal of any claim to, or any objection to the attachment of, such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection ). A fair reading and understanding of the proviso would make it clear that where any property is sold in execution of a decree pending the final disposal of any claim to, of any objection to the attachment of, such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection. From the proviso it would clearly appear that whenever objections to the attachment etc. are raised by any party then the sale would not be confirmed until such objections are decided. Once the Court undertakes the task of deciding the objections then an order has to be passed by the Court either granting or rejecting the objections. Once the final order is passed by the Court then sub rule 3 of Order 21 Rule 92 would immediately come into play and would forbid every person against whom the order is made to bring a suit. In the present matter as admitted by Shri Amit purohit and Smt. Anjali Jamkhedkar, learned Panel Lawyer, that their objections against attachment and auction sale were rejected, the said parties would not be entitled to challenge the auction sale. ( 9. ) THERE would be no problem in agreeing to the argument raised by Miss raveendran in relation to Rule 4 of Order 21 Rule 92. I assume for a moment that each set of the appellant is a third party and they have a right to challenge the judgment debtors title by filing a suit against the auction purchaser then in such a case the decree holder Fazal Hussain and the judgment debtor M/s. Dewas Tyres were statutorily necessary parties. I assume for a moment that each set of the appellant is a third party and they have a right to challenge the judgment debtors title by filing a suit against the auction purchaser then in such a case the decree holder Fazal Hussain and the judgment debtor M/s. Dewas Tyres were statutorily necessary parties. The cause title would clearly show that neither fazal Hussain nor M/s. Dewas Tyres were joined as parties. When the statute requires particular person to be joined as party then said non-joinder would make the suit statutorily bad. ( 10. ) IN the present matter it is also to be seen that the sale amount was deposited by Rajendra Sharma on 9. 5. 1981 and the possession was delivered to him. The court below in the opinion this Court was not unjustified in holding that each of the appeal was liable to be dismissed. On the merits, I do not find any good reason to interfere in the matter. Each of the appeal is dismissed summarily. ( 11. ) AT this stage it would be necessary to record that in such an important matter office of the Advocate General thought that a Panel Lawyer would be competent enough to assist this Court. Though I am not against Mrs. Anjali jamkhedkar but, I will have to record that better assistance could be provided in the matter. ( 12. ) LET a copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Secretary of the State of M. P for Perusal. Appeal dismissed