ORDER :

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the permission accorded to the petitioners, dated 22.12.2020, pertaining to the property of an extent of Ac.21.23 gts in Sy.Nos.708, 708/O, 708/P, 712, 712/A, 712/E, 712/F, 712/N, 715/A, 716/A, 735, 739, 739/A and 739/P of Upparapalli Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

2. Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that a building permission was accorded to the petitioners by proceedings, dated 22.12.2020. The 11th respondent has made representation to the authorities and thereafter, he filed W.P.No.15417/2021, wherein by order dated 08.07.2021, directed the respondent authorities to consider his representation, duly putting all the interested parties on notice and to pass necessary orders strictly in accordance with law. Later, the petitioners herein have filed a review application in W.P.No.15417 of 2021 and this Court has observed that all the grounds can be raised, which were raised before this Court, before the authorities. As such, the petitioners herein have filed written arguments before the authorities. He submits that the 11th respondent and others have executed an agreement of sale in favour of the 1st petitioner in the year 2003 and they instituted a collusive suit in the year 2008 for partition, declaration of shares and to declare the registered sale deeds dated 11.01.2005 and 25.11.2005 executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 as null and void. The Court below, by judgment dated 28.11.2019, decreed the suit by cancelling the sale deeds and allotted 1/5th share each to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2020 and this Court on 17.02.2020 has stayed for passing of final decree only pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 28.11.2019 in O.S.No.754 of 2018 of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner is entitled to 1/5th share, as such, he has commenced the construction. There are about 300 people working every day and if the construction is stopped, the petitioner would sustain loss of Rs.30,00,000/- per day. It is submitted that there are fair chances to succeed in the appeal and if the impugned order is not suspended, it would cause lot of hardship and inconvenience to the parties. That the petitioners are ready to give any undertaking that any construction that is made is subject to the result of the first appeal.

3. Learned counsel relied on the following judgments :

27. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath this court had an occasion to consider the doctrine of fraud and the effect thereof on the judgment obtained by a party. In that case, one A by a registered deed relinquished all his rights in the suit property in favour of C who sold the property to B. Without disclosing that fact, A filed a suit for possession against B and obtained preliminary decree. During the pendency of an application for final decree, B came to know about the fact of release deed by playing fraud on the court and was a nullity. The trial court upheld the contention and dismissed the application. The High Court, however, set aside the order of the trial court, observing that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence”. B approached this court. (A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others, (2007) 4 SCC 221)

A final decree proceeding may be initiated at any point of time. No limitation is provided therefor. However, what can be executed is a final decree, and not a preliminary decree, unless and until final decree is a part of the preliminary decree (Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad and others, (2007) 2 SCC 355).

A decree therefore may denote final adjudication between the par