ORDER : Petitioner, nominee of decree holders (plaintiffs), in suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 filed E.A.No.29 of 2018 in E.A.No.95 of 2012 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in O.S.No.180 of 2006, to reject the E.A.No.95 of 2012. The Court below by order dated 13.06.2022 dismissed E.A.No.29 of 2018. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 2. (a) Facts, in brief, are that 1st respondent herein filed E.A.No.95 of 2012 under Section 47 of CPC. In the petition, it was contended that decree holders 1 to 8, being plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.12.2005 against the defendant, arrayed as 10th respondent herein, in respect of 1500 square meters or 1800 square yards i.e. 2/3rd share of Ac.2.30 cents. Defendant did not contest the suit and hence, the suit was decreed exparte vide judgment dated 23.03.2007. After the suit was decreed, decree holders filed E.P.No.17 of 2007 and, also filed E.A.No.23 of 2007 nominating the revision petitioner. The said petition was allowed. The Court executed the sale deed in favour of nominee on 26.07.2012. The nominee filed E.A.No.87 of 2012 seeking delivery of schedule property and filed E.A.No.88 of 2012 seeking police aid. (b) As the matter stood thus, 3rd party to the suit claiming semblance of right by virtue of agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006 filed E.A.No.95 of 2012 under Section 47 of CPC. The nominee filed a counter and opposed the application. Trial in the claim petition commenced. When the trial is in progress, the nominee filed E.A.No.29 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the claim petition. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that claim petitioner is 3rd party to the suit, and he filed the claim petition to set aside the sale deed dated 26.07.2012 executed by the Court basing on agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006. Claim petitioner based on agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006 filed suit O.S.No.539 of 2012 seeking specific performance and the said suit is pending. The suit agreement in the present O.S.No.180 of 2006 is dated 07.12.2005. Unless the claim petitioner gets right over the property, he cannot maintain the claim petition and the claim petition itself is barred by limitation and prayed the Court to reject the claim petition. 4. Claim petitioner filed counter and opposed the application. The suit agreement in the present O.S.No.180 of 2006 is dated 07.12.2005. Unless the claim petitioner gets right over the property, he cannot maintain the claim petition and the claim petition itself is barred by limitation and prayed the Court to reject the claim petition. 4. Claim petitioner filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended in the counter that after completion of evidence claim petitioner, nominee filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. He was cross examined in part. Having sensed that the fraud played by them on the Court will surface, the nominee filed the application to reject the claim petition. The nominee filed an affidavit before the executing Court that the Decree holders have no money to pay the balance of sale consideration to get sale deed and hence, they nominated the nominee to get the sale deed. Plaintiffs and defendant in the suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 colluded together and by playing fraud, they got the suit decreed. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has no application and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 5. The Court below by order dated 13.06.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 6. Heard Sri B.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for 1st respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that claim petitioner being 3rd party to the suit, cannot maintain the claim petitioner, without having any semblance of right over the suit schedule property. The relief sought in the claim petition is to set aside the sale deed dated 26.07.2012 executed by the Court. He would submit that petition under Section 47 of CPC, the executing Court normally will not set aside sale deed executed by the Court. He would also submit that agreement of sale filed in O.S.No.180 of 2006 is dated 07.12.2005 and claim petitioner filed suit O.S.No.539 of 2012 based on agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006, i.e. subsequent to agreement of sale dated 07.12.2005. He would also submit that the nominee of decree holders filed E.P. for delivery and police aid and at that juncture the claim petitioner filed claim petition only to drag the proceedings and the trial Court without considering all these aspects dismissed the application. 8. He would also submit that the nominee of decree holders filed E.P. for delivery and police aid and at that juncture the claim petitioner filed claim petition only to drag the proceedings and the trial Court without considering all these aspects dismissed the application. 8. Learned counsel for 1st respondent would submit that suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 filed by eight plaintiffs against the sole defendant based on alleged agreement of sale dated 07.12.2005. The defendant therein did not contest the suit and hence he court set the defendant exparte. The suit was decreed on 23.03.2007 directing the defendant to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiffs or their nominees by receiving the balance sale consideration within two months, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to get the sale deed under due process. He would submit that decree holders having filed E.P.No.17 of 2007 could not deposit the amount and nominated 3rd party, who filed affidavit before the executing Court that decree holders have no money. The said petition was ordered. Sale deed was executed on 26.07.2012 in favour of nominee. Thus, the decree holders played fraud on the Court. He would submit that having realized that fraud played on the Court will come to light, nominee filed application, during the enquiry stage, to reject the claim petition. He would submit that claim petitioner also claiming semblance of right through defendant in O.S.No.180 of 2006 and hence, the claim petition is maintainable. 9. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether E.A.No.29 of 2018 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, to reject the claim petition is maintainable? 10. Facts, in brief, extracted supra would disclose filing of suit O.S.No180 of 2006; decree of suit by trial Court; filing of execution petition by decree holders and nominating third party and getting sale deed executed in the name of third party and third party filing E.As. for delivery and police aid. It is also an undisputed fact that suit O.S.No.180 of 2006 was filed based on an agreement of sale dated 07.12.2005. 11. Claim petitioner filed claim petition narrating the entire history relating to the schedule property of an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in S.No.19/2 in MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam and the proceedings before the Urban Land Ceiling authority. It was further contended in the claim petition about three registered documents executed pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006. 11. Claim petitioner filed claim petition narrating the entire history relating to the schedule property of an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in S.No.19/2 in MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam and the proceedings before the Urban Land Ceiling authority. It was further contended in the claim petition about three registered documents executed pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006. It was further averred about his paying an amount of Rs.43,64,000/- out of Rs.47,06,000/- and property in O.S.No.180 of 2006 is part and parcel of agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006. It was further averred regarding filing suit O.S.No.539 of 2012 after exchanging legal notices and further averred about fraud played by the parties. 12. In the petition filed under Section 47 of CPC, the Court must decide all questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree. Those things must be decided by the Court executing the decree, but not by a separate suit. 13. Case on hand, as per the averments in the claim petition, claim petitioner is claiming his right over the property by virtue of agreement of sale from the defendant, who remained exparte in suit O.S.No.180 of 2006. The averments further disclose about execution of three sale deeds in favour of nominees of claim petitioner pursuant to agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006. The main ground on which the claim petition was filed is that parties to the suit played fraud on the Court. If a suit is decreed as a result of fraud, it can be challenged in collateral proceedings. After the decree, decree holders filed execution petition and later nominated the revision petition, who came into picture and filed affidavit that petitioners have no money to get the sale deed. When the nominee filed E.A.No.23 of 2007, the same was allowed and eventually Sale Deed was executed in the name of nominee on 26.07.2012. 14. In the claim petition, necessary averments were made regarding plea of fraud as contemplated under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC. If the claim petitioner failed to prove the aspect of fraud, he will be non-suited on that ground. It is also pertinent to mention here that Interlocutory Application to reject the claim petition was filed at the stage when the nominee was partly cross examined. 15. If the claim petitioner failed to prove the aspect of fraud, he will be non-suited on that ground. It is also pertinent to mention here that Interlocutory Application to reject the claim petition was filed at the stage when the nominee was partly cross examined. 15. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that in a suit, if any cause of action is not disclosed or the suit is barred by limitation, the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. To ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive, shall not be permitted to waste judicial time of the Court. The Court, in the facts of each case, can exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 16. Case on hand, as stated supra, the claim petitioner alleged fraud qua the decree in O.S.No.180 of 2006. He also pleaded his semblance of right by virtue of agreement of sale dated 02.02.2006, of course, it is after agreement of sale in O.S.No.180 of 2006. Now the claim petition is coming up for cross examination of nominee and in fact, he was cross examined in part. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the executing Court dismissed the application by a reasoned order. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. There are no merits in the revision and Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Since the evidence of nominee was recorded in part, learned Executing Court shall dispose of E.A.No.95 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible keeping in view of the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/2022, dated 23.11.2022. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.