JUDGMENT :- 1. This civil revision petition has been filed as against the fair and decretal order dated 26.04.2011 made in I.A.No.104 of 2011 in O.S.No.363 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Salem, whereby the application filed by the revision petitioner to implead him as 4th defendant in O.S.No.363 of 2007 initiated by the first respondent as against the respondents 2 and 3 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in the revision petition are as follows: (i) The third respondent is a Private Limited Company and the fourth respondent is the Managing Director of the third respondent company. The third respondent was doing business at Calcutta. He availed loan from the first respondent Bank by mortgaging the suit schedule property. The second respondent stood as a guarantor for the repayment of the loan by the third respondent. (ii) Subsequently, the second respondent filed a suit as against the third and fourth respondents herein in O.S.No.780 of 1997 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Salem for declaration of title and also for permanent injunction restraining the third and fourth respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In the said suit, ex-parte decree was passed on 16.04.1998 in favour of the second respondent herein. (iii) In the meantime, the first respondent bank has initiated the recovery proceedings against the respondents 2 to 4 in O.A.No.23 of 1994 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kolkatta. In the said proceedings, the property was brought under the auction and the revision petitioner herein had purchased the major part of the suit property in the said auction for a consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/-. The certificate of sale was also issued in favour of the revision petitioner by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkatta. The first respondent Bank having come to know about that the ex-pare decree obtained by the second respondent, has filed the suit in O.S.No.363 of 2007 as against respondents 2 to 4 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.780 of 1997 on the ground that in order to defeat the right of the first respondent Bank with whom the property was mortgaged, the respondents 2 to 4 by colluding with each other, by playing fraud obtained the decree from the Court. (iv) Pending the suit, the revision petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.104 of 2011 to implead himself as one of the defendant. But the said application was dismissed by the Court below on the finding that the first respondent Bank has filed the suit only to set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.780 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Salem in which neither title nor right over the suit property is involved and therefore, the revision petitioner is not a necessary party. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 4. In my considered opinion by filing a suit in O.S.No.780 of 1997 as against respondents 3 and 4, the second respondent herein has obtained the ex-parte decree in respect of the suit property. But the said property was brought to auction based on the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkatta in O.A.No.23 of 1994 by the first respondent Bank and the revision petitioner had purchased the same in the auction. Now, the petitioner is the title holder of the property. Therefore, he is a necessary party to the suit filed by the Bank as against the other respondents in respect of the property purchased by the revision petitioner. Moreover, by impleading the revision petitioner no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 26.04.2011 passed in I.A.No.104 of 2011 in O.S.No.363 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Salem is set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed. The Court below is directed to permit the petitioner to implead himself as 4th respondent in O.S.No.363 of 2007 and decide the suit as early as possible by affording ample opportunity to all the parties. 6. The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.