ORDER :

Petitioner, nominee of decree holders (plaintiffs), in suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 filed E.A.No.29 of 2018 in E.A.No.95 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in O.S.No.180 of 2006, to reject the E.A.No.95 of 2012. The Court below by order dated 13.06.2022 dismissed E.A.No.29 of 2018. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

2. (a) Facts, in brief, are that 1st respondent herein filed E.A.No.95 of 2012 under Section 47 of CPC. In the petition, it was contended that decree holders 1 to 8, being plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.12.2005 against the defendant, arrayed as 10th respondent herein, in respect of 1500 square meters or 1800 square yards i.e. 2/3rd share of Ac.2.30 cents. Defendant did not contest the suit and hence, the suit was decreed exparte vide judgment dated 23.03.2007. After the suit was decreed, decree holders filed E.P.No.17 of 2007 and, also filed E.A.No.23 of 2007 nominating the revision petitioner. The said petition was allowed. The Court executed the sale deed in favour of nominee on 26.07.2012. The nominee filed E.A.No.87 of 2012 seeking delivery of schedule property and filed E.A.No.88 of 2012 seeking police aid. (b) As the matter stood thus, 3rd party to the suit claiming semblance of right by virtue of agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006 filed E.A.No.95 of 2012 under Section 47 of CPC. The nominee filed a counter and opposed the application. Trial in the claim petition commenced. When the trial is in progress, the nominee filed E.A.No.29 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the claim petition.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that claim petitioner is 3rd party to the suit, and he filed the claim petition to set aside the sale deed dated 26.07.2012 executed by the Court basing on agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006. Claim petitioner based on agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006 filed suit O.S.No.539 of 2012 seeking specific performance and the said suit is pending. The suit agreement in the present O.S.No.180 of 2006 is dated 07.12.2005. Unless the claim petitioner gets right over the property, he cannot maintain the claim petition and the claim petition itself is barred by limitation and prayed the Court to reject the claim petition.

4. Claim petitioner filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended in the counter that after completion of evidence claim petitioner, nominee filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. He was cross examined in part. Having sensed that the fraud played by them on the Court will surface, the nominee filed the application to reject the claim petition. The nominee filed an affidavit before the executing Court that the Decree holders have no money to pay the balance of sale consideration to get sale deed and hence, they nominated the nominee to get the sale deed. Plaintiffs and defendant in the suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 colluded together and by playing fraud, they got the suit decreed. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has no application and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

5. The Court below by order dated 13.06.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

6. Heard Sri B.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for 1st respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that claim petitioner being 3rd party to the suit, cannot maintain the claim petitioner, without having any semblance of right over the suit schedule property. The relief sought in the claim petition is to set aside the sale deed dated 26.07.2012 executed by the Court. He would submit that petition under Section 47 of CPC, the executing Court normally will not set aside sale deed executed by the Court. He would also submit that agreement of sale filed in O.S.No.180 of 2006 is dated 07.12.2005 and claim petitioner filed suit O.S.No.539 of 2012 based on agreement of sale dated 0