1. The present application is filed questioning the order dated 23.03.2018, passed in E.A.58 of 2013 filed under order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. in E.P No.10 of 2018 in O.S.No.36 of 2001, by the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerbad. The appellants are the claim petitioners in E.P No.10 of 2008.

2. The appellants/claim petitioners claimed to have entered into an oral agreement of sale with regard to the suit schedule property with respondents No.2 to 9 on 26.08.1997. According to the claim petitioners, on 03.05.2007 the respondents 2 to 9 have received the entire sale consideration from the appellants and had also executed a sale deed dated 03.05.2007, bearing documents No. 9006 of 2007 conveying the schedule property. They claimed to be in possession of the property and that they also state that their names are mutated in the Revenue records.

3. Sri N.Hanumantha Reddy (presently - Respondent No.1), is a person who is said to be holding an agreement of sale with respondent Nos. 2 to 9, in I.A.No.1 of 2018, for the same land. This agreement was supposedly executed on 29.12.1997. The said Humanath Reddy filed a suit O.S. 36 of 2001 for specific performance of the agreement of sale in his favour. The respondents in that suit remained exparte and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff - N.Hanumantha Reddy in the year 2005. The said Hanumanth Reddy as plaintiff - decree holder, filed E.P 10 of 2008 for the execution of the sale deed. At this stage respondent Nos. 2 to 9 filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order along with a delay condonation application. The same was allowed. The delay was condoned and the ex-parte decree was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed CRP.No. 1926/2013 and CRP.No. 1927/2013 both of which were allowed. The unsuccessful respondents preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed on 25.07.2016. A Review application was also filed and the same was dismissed. The respondents 2 to 9 then preferred an appeal against the ex-parte decree passed against them and the same is pending with ASSR No. 13561 of 2016. The delay condonation application is still pending. This is the factual matrix of the case.

4. The present appellants/claim petitioners filed E.A 58 of 2013 under order 21 Rule 97 CPC, claiming that they have a right and interest in the property. They also state that the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 36 of 2001, who is the respondent No.1 herein also executed a relinquishment deed/declaration on 22.07.2002 in their favour.

5. Thus, by virtue of an earlier agreement of sale which culminated in a sale deed during the pendency of suit O.S. 36 of 2001 and a relinquishment declaration dated 22.07.2002, the claim petitioners wanted the court to adjudicate their rights. This was strongly opposed by the respondents. Ultimately, by the impugned orders dated 23.03.2019, the claim petition came to be dismissed in totality. Questioning the same the present A.S 865 of 2018 was filed. In the said claim petition I.A. 1 of 2018 was filed for stay of all proceedings and this Court by on order dated 18.06.2018 granted an interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P. 10 of 2008. Vacate stay petition in I.A. 2/2018 was filed to vacate the stay.

6. This Court has heard Sri P. Badri Premnath - learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V Hariharan, learned counsel for the respondents/vacate stay petitioners. Both the counsel argued the matter thoroughly. The matter was re-opened once and on a query by the Court; both the learned counsel agreed that the main appeal itself can be disposed of as their arguments were on the complete merits of the matter.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the dismissal of the claim petition is contrary to law. He submits that the claim petition should be adjudicated like a suit and that a trial should be conducted. According to him, after the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code, all quest