Jayant Patel, J.—The present application has been preferred for vacating of the interim relief, on the ground of non-maintainability of the appeal being FA No. 2733 of 2009 under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CPC’, for short).

2. We have heard Mr. SN Shelat, ld. Sr. Counsel with Mr. Vasavada for the applicants and Mr. Mihir Joshi, ld. Sr. Counsel with Mr. Shastri for opponents No. 1 to 4 (original appellants), who are the main contesting party since they are original appellants.

3. In order to consider the question of maintainability, the relevant facts are that on 18.3.1993 the applicants herein – original plaintiffs instituted the suit for specific performance of Contract before the Civil Court being Special Civil Suit No. 12/1983 (new number being 4/2002). In the said suit, two separate written compromise were submitted by certain parties to the proceedings being Exhs.600 and 635. First compromise Exh.600 was between plaintiffs on one side and defendants No. 1/1 to 1/3 and defendant No. 2 and defendants No. 5 to 7 on the other side. It appears that, thereafter, when the first compromise, Exh.600 was tendered, the Court was satisfied that the parties concerned ha