PAULINE FREDERICK Vs. V L NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of the same matter and the parties are the same. CRP.No. 4800 of 1984 arises out of the order of the 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in E.A. No. 1282 of 1984 in E.P. No. 342 of 1983 and the petitioner in the execution application is the revision petitioner. C.R.P. No. 219 of 1985 arises out of the order of the said judge in E.P. 342 of 1983 and the second respondent therein, who is the petitioner in E.A. No. 1282 of 1984 is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are these:-

(3.) The learned 10th Asst. Judge by his order dated 16.11.1984 dismissed E.A. No. 1282/84 holding that the sale in favour of the revision petitioner was affected by lis pendens and she is not entitled to contend that the decree obtained by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent is not executable. Consequently he allowed E.P. No. 342/83 and directed delivery. The revision petitioner has, therefore, come forward with these two revisions.