IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CMA.No.506 of 2011 Between: Jeeri Anuradha and 4 others ..... APPELLANTS/THIRD PARTY PETITIONERS AND Dr.M.Parvathi and 10 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CMA.No.506 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Appellants herein are third parties to the impugned EP proceedings. They have challenged the order of the IV Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam passed in E.A.3/2009 in E.P.26/2008 in O.S.326/2007 dated 30.05.2011. The 1st petitioner who is the first appellant in the appeal filed affidavit stating that her mother Bora Sakunthala Devi purchased an extent of 855 sq.yards in Sy.No.59/7B of Maddilapalem village from P.Musalaiah and others vide registered sale deed dated 03.05.1969 and ever since she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Her vendors traced their title under registered sale deed dated 28.04.1950 from Mrs.Maria Lucia Narona. Her mother sold certain extents of lands to others. Subsequently, when there was threat of dispossession from one Dungi Sulochana Rani, 6th respondent herein, she filed O.S.1168/1993 on the file of the III Addl.District Munisif, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction. Subsequently, Dungi Sulochana Rani and her daughters i.e. Respondents Nos.6 to 11 herein filed O.S.678 & 679 of 2000 before the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against one Rikka Sumathi i.e. 5th appellant herein and against her mother seeking declaration of title. The suit filed by her mother i.e. O.S.1168/1993 was decreed after full fledged trial. The other suits filed by Dungi Sulochana Rani and others were withdrawn. Subsequently, they filed O.S.427/2004 against the 5th appellant herein and O.S.431/2004 against her mother for the same relief, but ultimately those suits were also dismissed for default on 06.10.2009. It is also her case that on 31.05.2011 some private individuals came to their site and tried to dispossess them and dismantle the structures in their property. However, they have resisted them and their enquiries revealed that Dungi Sulochana Rani and others who are respondents Nos.6 to 11 herein have lost litigation against the appellants herein and in collusion with others got a collusive suit filed for specific performance of the contract against them by Respondents Nos.4 and 5 herein and accordingly, the suit was decreed on 23.09.2008. It is also submitted that basing on agreement of sale entered in 1993 the said collusive suit was filed in 2007 i.e. about 14 years after the date of alleged agreement of sale. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since fraud has been played and there is no time for them to approach any other Court, they have rushed to this Court for justice. Admittedly, the appellants herein are third parties to the impugned proceedings. This appeal is filed under Or.43 Rule-1 CPC. None of the provisions of Order-43 Rule-1 CPC enables the appellants to file this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable as appellants are not parties to the impugned proceedings. The only course open for the appellants is to file a claim petition to resist the execution of the decree under Or.21 Rule-97 CPC. Under Or.21 Rule-97 CPC the appellants are entitled for resistance or obstruction to possession of their immovable property. If any such claim petition is filed under Or.21 Rules-97 CPC and even if it is dismissed or allowed, it would be treated as decree and a regular appeal would lie on the said judgment and decree. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellants herein have an effective alternative remedy to approach before the Court below alone under Or.21 Rule-97 CPC. Accordingly, the CMA(SR) is dismissed. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to protect the interests of the appellants herein for a period of 10 days so as to enable them to approach the Court below and obtain appropriate necessary orders. Therefore, we grant status quo obtaining as on today for a period of 10 days from today, enabling the appellants to approach the Court below. If any petition is filed by the appellants under Or.21 Rule-97 CPC, the Court below shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dated: 06.06.2011 Dsr Note: Furnish operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs tomorrow. B/o Dsr