( 1 ) ). THE petitioners herein have originally filed Special Civil Application No. 2410 of 2002 before this Court challenging the order passed by the ld. Civil Judge (JD) Una below a pursis-cum-application ex. 206 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 89/96 on 31. 1. 2002. The petitioners have also prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the sale-deed made by respondents no. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent no. 3 on 31. 1. 2002 registered with respondent no. 4 with regard to the immovable property situated in Una Town, near Bukhari Saiyed Mohalla bearing City Survey Nos. 206 and 207, Block-D, admeasuring 1257-16-78 sq. mts. , holding the same to be illegal, unauthorised, fraudulent and null and void.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have challenged in the said petition a decree obtained by respondents no. 1 and 2 from Civil Court (JD) Una by practising fraud upon the petitioners and the ld. trial judge and the suit filed by respondent no. 1 against respondent no. 2 and the petitioners and others for administration and partition of the property inherited by the parties to the said proceedings of deceased Haji Hasan Haji Mohmed, who happened to be the father of respondent no. 1 and the husband of respondent no. 2 and the brother of the petitioners ancestor deceased Haji Mohmed and deceased Sarbai Nathubhai. The petitioners have further submitted that though the aforesaid suit of the respondent no. 1 was being contested by the petitioners as well as respondent no. 2 and other defendants, the respondents no. 1 and 2 went to the ld. trial court on 31. 1. 2002 and submitted a compromise pursis at Exh. 206 between respondents no. 1 and 2 and praying for deletion of other defendants of the suit and accordingly obtained the decree on the same day practicing fraud upon the petitioners and the ld. Civil Judge (JD) Court, Una. Respondents no. 1 and 2 on the same day, i. e. 31. 1. 2002 posed themselves to be the heirs and the representatives of deceased Haji Hasan Haji Mohmed in connivance and collusion with respondent no. 3 and making false statements before respondent no. 4 executed a sale-deed in favour of the respondent no. 3 of the immovable property of deceased Haji Hasan Haji Mohmed, which was the subject matter of the aforesaid suit. The decree thus obtained by practicing fraud upon the petitioners and the ld. trial court and simultaneously executed the sale deed by respondents no. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent no. 3 are the products of fraud and are, therefore, nullity, nonest and not binding to the petitioners and the same cannot be acted upon by the respondents in any manner whatsoever. The petitioners, therefore, submitted that the decree obtained by respondents no. 1 and 2 as aforesaid and then the sale deed executed by them in favour of respondent no. 3 are contrary to the provisions of Mohammedan Law and civil Procedure Code and, therefore, also the decree and the consequent thereof the execution of the sale deed rendered illegal, unauthorised, improper and creating no binding effect to the petitioners and the respondents authorities.

( 3 ) THE said petition was opposed by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the petition is not maintainable as the impugned order can be challenged by way of appropriate proceedings under the provisions of CPC and the provisions of Constitution of India cannot be made operative in such case, inasmuch as there is alternative efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioners and the execution of the sale-deed between respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 is purely of a civil nature and is a private civil transaction. The petition was also opposed on the ground that no substantial relief was prayed for against the State Government and hence, there was misjoinder of parties. It was also opposed on the ground that the copy of the pursis-cum-application at ex. 206 was given to the advocate of the petitioners and the order was passed after hearing the advocate a