JUDGMENT M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge in Company Application No.110 of 2012 in C.P.No.65 of 2002, by which, the request of the appellant was not considered favourably. 2. Miscellaneous Application Nos.2 and 3 of 2012 have been filed by the appellant to implead the Official Assignee as the third respondent in the above appeal viz., O.S.A.No.118 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 in O.S.A.No.118 of 2012 and the said applications were ordered, vide order of this Court, dated 26.06.2012. 3. Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2012 has been filed by the appellant to implead the petitioner in this petition as the fourth respondent in the above appeal viz., O.S.A.No.118 of 2012 and the said application was ordered, vide order of this Court, dated 11.12.2012. 4. Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner/appellant to permit them to appropriate a sum of Rs.10,02,47,503/-along with accrued interest deposited favouring the Registrar General, High Court, Chennai, in C.A.No.382 of 2011 in C.P.No.65 of 2002. 5. Miscellaneous Application No.5 of 2012 has been filed by the Official Assignee to set aside the sale in the name of the fourth respondent in the appeal. 6. Facts in brief: 6.1.Mr.Ashok Muthana, the second respondent herein, created a mortgage for the loan availed by M/s Fidelity Industries Limited. Accordingly, the Memorandum of deposit of title deeds were executed by the second respondent in favour of the appellant. Since M/s Fidelity Industries Limited did not make the repayment and defaulted, the appellant has filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the dues. A company petition in C.P.No.526 of 2001 was filed, by which, an order of winding up was passed against M/s Fidelity Industries Limited on 10.04.2001. The appellant, invoking the provisions of SARFAESI Act, issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 04.08.2002. In the meanwhile, an insolvency petition was filed in I.P.No125 of 2000 against Mr.Ashok Muthana, the second respondent herein and he was declared as insolvent on 21.10.2002. Thereafter, the Administrator was appointed by the Honourable High Court in C.P.No.65 of 2002. The appellant impleaded the Official Assignee before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 20.02.2004. In the year 2004, Mr.Ashok Muthana requested the learned Administrator to sell his personal property. Thereafter, the Administrator was appointed by the Honourable High Court in C.P.No.65 of 2002. The appellant impleaded the Official Assignee before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 20.02.2004. In the year 2004, Mr.Ashok Muthana requested the learned Administrator to sell his personal property. An affidavit was filed in C.A. No.1432 of 2004 by the Administrator of M/s Fidelity Industries Limited to sell the property through public auction. The appellant filed his counter affidavit, in which, it was brought to the notice of the Company Court that Mr.Ashok Muthana was declared as insolvent. The Company Court directed the Official Liquidator to assess and value the property. An application was filed in C.A.No.1308 of 2005 by the Administrator to restrain the appellant-Indian Bank from bringing the property for sale was ordered. Thereafter, a possession notice was issued by the appellant to Mr.Ashok Muthana. In the year 2006, the Official Assignee informed the appellant that the sale can only be effected by him. 6.2. In pursuant to the orders of this Court, public notice for sale was issued. But the property could not be brought up for sale. An order was passed in C.A.Nos.1432 and 1308 of 2005, on 01.09.2006, directing the Official Liquidator to bring the property for sale. The appeal filed by the appellant in O.S.A.No.279 of 2006 was dismissed on 29.09.2006. Thereafter, the appellant tried to sell the property under the SARFAESI Act. The auction conducted on 30.12.2010 did not fructify into a sale. The Honourable Apex Court in C.A.No.5867 of 2008, by an order, dated 04.04.2011, directed the company Court to sell the property and keep the sale consideration in Court custody. Further orders have been passed by the Honourable Apex Court in C.A.No.5867 of 2008, on 13.01.2012, and a direction was issued to the Company Court to disburse the auction amount in accordance with law. Thereafter, the appellant filed Company Application in C.A.No.110 of 2012, seeking the payment of amount deposited. The said application was disposed of by the learned single Judge, on 05.03.2012, directing the appellant to submit the accounts before the Official Liquidator with the further direction to the said Official Liquidator to verify the accounts and adjudicate the matter. Challenging the same, the present Original Side Appeal has been filed. 7. The said application was disposed of by the learned single Judge, on 05.03.2012, directing the appellant to submit the accounts before the Official Liquidator with the further direction to the said Official Liquidator to verify the accounts and adjudicate the matter. Challenging the same, the present Original Side Appeal has been filed. 7. Submissions of the Appellant:- The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant being the secured creditor, the amount available after the sale should be used to satisfy its dues. The decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court has become final and therefore, is binding. The depositors of Fidelity Finance Limited does not have any right or claim over the property mortgaged to the appellant-Bank. The Official Assignee has not taken appropriate steps to implead himself either before the Honourable Apex Court or before the learned single Judge. The provisions of SARFAESI Act will have primacy. The learned single Judge has not adverted into the various contentions of the appellantand therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appeal will have to be allowed. 8. Submissions of the Respondents: 8.1.The learned counsels appearing for the Official Assignee and the Official Liquidator submitted that there is a collusion between the parties. The appellant has not impleaded the Official Assignee inspite of the knowledge about Mr.Ashok Muthana having been declared as insolvent by the orders of the Court. The mortgage in favour of the appellant itself in question. A decision affecting the rights of the proper and necessary parties is not binding. The parties before the Honourable Apex Court have not brought the factum of the order passed by the insolvency Court and therefore, it is not open to them to rely upon the same. Even before the learned single Judge, no attempts have been made to implead the Official Assignee. There are lot of legal and factual issues, which required to be gone into. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the relief sought for. 8.2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has submitted that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. The decision of the Honourable Apex Court is binding on every one. The documents filed before the Honourable Apex Court contain a reference about the order passed by the insolvency Court. 8.2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has submitted that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. The decision of the Honourable Apex Court is binding on every one. The documents filed before the Honourable Apex Court contain a reference about the order passed by the insolvency Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal will have to be allowed and consequently, the auction held in favour of the fourth respondent will have to be confirmed by the issuance of a sale certificate. 9. DISCUSSION: 9.1. Admittedly, the third respondent-Official Assignee was not made as a party before the Honourable Apex Court and the learned single Judge. Many factual and legal issues have to be decided between the parties. The Honourable Apex Court had no occasion to consider those issues. Respondents 1 and 3 have raised the very entitlement of the appellant. Admittedly an order was passed declaring Mr.Ashok Muthana as insolvent. The order of the learned single Judge did not show that all the issues raised by the parties were considered including the applicability and relevancy of the Apex Court's decision. We are of the view that the third respondent is a necessary party for deciding the application. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge will have to be set aside for deciding all the issues raised by the parties before us. We also permit the third respondent to implead himself as a party respondent before the learned single Judge. We also further permit the arties to file such of the applications, as they desire, before the learned single Judge. 9.2. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge in C.A.No.110 of 2012 in C.P.No.65 of 2002 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration to decide it after hearing all the parties and their respective submissions. The parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the learned single Judge. 10. The Original Side Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.