he ought to have made the appellant a party in the suit. In view of the non-juncture of the appellant in the array as defendant in O.S.No.357/2005 and in view of the conceding of the claim of the plaintiff for realisation of money by the sole defendant therein who is the 1st respondent herein, collusion among the parties to the avoidance of the appellant, a necessary party, is smelled. The plaintiff in O.S.No.357/2005 was the defeated claim petitioner in E.A No.1112/2002 and he has opted to file the said suit suppressing the actual state of affairs exist, following the auction purchase. It is true that F.A.O No.97/2005 filed challenging the order of the I Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode in E.A.No.1112/2002 in E.P No.92/2001 was dismissed and the order was confirmed by this Court, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to establish the equitable mortgage of the property in a suit that may be filed by him for realisation of the amount. This Court while dismissing F.A.O has not expressed any opinion on merits about the existence of an equitable mortgage. But, the 2nd respondent who has information about the auction sale of the property in respect of which the equitable mortgage was claimed as created must have arrayed the appellant, the auction purchaser also a party to the suit to avoid further complications and multiplicity of suits. The defendant in the suit is none other than the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.430/1996 whose property has been
