JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 02.11.2010 in E.A.No. 18 of 2007 in E.P.No. 8 of 2007 in O.S.No. 419 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar, Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the application filed by the appellants herein under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. seeking dismissal of Execution Petition No. 8 of 2007 was dismissed by the learned Executing Court.

2. The appellants herein are the claim petitioners, third parties; the respondent No. 1 is the decree holder and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are judgment debtors in O.S. No. 419 of 2006. Originally, the decree holder, respondent No. 1 herein, filed the suit in O.S. No. 419 of 2006 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.08.2005 executed by the judgment debtors, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein in respect of suit schedule property. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 remained ex parte to the suit proceedings. Ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte on 11.10.2006 as prayed for and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit schedule property within two months from the date of judgment by receiving balance sale consideration. In default of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to do so, the respondent No. 1 was granted liberty to get the sale deed executed through the court by depositing the balance sale consideration into the Court after lapse of two months. Since the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not come forward to execute the regular sale deed within the specified time, the respondent No. 1 initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 8 of 2007 by depositing the balance sale consideration. At this stage, the appellants-M/s. Sri Sri Housing & Constructions herein filed E.A. No. 18 of 2007 under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. seeking dismissal of E.P. No. 8 of 2007 contending inter alia that the appellant No.1 is the owner and possessor of property in total extent of Ac.8-18 gts., of Polkampally village, Ibrahimpatan having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 25.11.2006 (Ex.A.1) from the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and others; that the appellant No. 1, in turn, executed a registered Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (Ex.A.2) in favour of the appellant No. 2 for an extent of Ac.7-23 cents, appointing the appellant No. 2 as his agent to enter into sub contract of sale. Thereafter, the appellants started developmental activity in the suit schedule property for residential use. On 02.07.2007, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 with other vendors of the appellants, in collusion with the respondent No. 1/decree holder have obstructed the work and tried to grab the property. Since the respondents have no right to make any claim in the suit schedule property, the appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No. 1696 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge and obtained ad-interim injunction on 19.07.2007. The respondents filed counter and written statements contesting the suit on the basis of which, the appellants came to know about the filing of the E.P.No. 8 of 2007. Hence, they filed the E.A. seeking dismissal of the E.P.

3. The respondent No. 1 contested the E.A. by filing counter affidavit.

4. On behalf of appellants, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. The respondent No. 1 herself examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.8. The Executing Court, having analyzed the entire evidence brought on record, by the impugned order, dismissed the E.A. holding that the appellants are not having any right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, the appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/third party claimants and the respondent No. 1/decree holder. Perused the material available on record.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the learned Executing Court dismissed the application on erroneous view without proper