K S RAVI Vs. K P MANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in both the revision petitions are one and the same as the order challenged in CRP.(NPD).No.1484 of 2004 is consequent to the order impugned in CRP.(NPD).No.1483 of 2004, a Common Order is pronounced for both the revision petitions. The parties are referred in the array in which they are described in C.R.P.(NPD).No.1483 of 2004.

(2.) The decree holder in O.S.No.95 of 2000 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Bhavani, is the revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions. C.R.P.No.1483 of 2004 arises against the order passed in E.A.No.46 of 2002 in E.P.No.14 of 2001 by the learned Sub Judge, Bhavani, wherein the application filed by the respondent under Order 21 Rule 101 and Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed. C.R.P.No.1484 of 2004 arises out of the consequential dismissal order passed in E.P.No.14 of 2001 filed by the revision petitioner for executing the decree for specific performance obtained by him in O.S.No.95 of 2000.

(3.) A brief synopsis of the various stages of the two suits (O.S.No.95 of 2000 filed by the revision petitioner and O.S.No.122 of 2000 filed by the 1st respondent) is narrated herein below. The defendant in both the suits is the 2nd respondent Muthusamy.