R DEVADASS Vs. SUBORDINATE JUDGE PONNERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As against the return of the applications of the revision petitioner made by the Executing Court in making an obstruction in delivery of possession, these revision petitions have been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) There were two such applications filed by the revision petitioner on 13-3-2002 and in both of which, orders of return were made requiring him to quote the law under which he has preferred those applications and also to show as to why he has not issued notice to the other side. Aggrieved by that, these revision petitions have been filed.

(3.) There was an agreement of sale in between the Respondents 2 and 3, by name of Sakthivel and Rojasundaram, who has got three sons the revision petitioner Devadass, Pandian and Karunakaran. That agreement was dated 16-7-1987 in respect of an extent of 4.53 acres of land situated at Madhavaram. Based on the sale agreement, a suit for specific performance was filed in O. S. No. 372 of 1998 by the second respondent against the third respondent and in which, a compromise was arrived at in a LokAdalat held on 13-11-2000. It is in pursuance of which, the execution petition for delivery was filed and the delivery was also ordered in the month of February 2002.