The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale deed executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the revision petitioner on 22.02.1984 prevailed over the sale deed dated 19.09.1991 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent. The court also found that the lower court's decision was contrary to law and facts and imposed exemplary costs on the respondent for abusing the process of the court.

1. C.R.P.(NPD).No.405 of 2010 : This revision is directed against the fair and decretal order passed by the learned District Munsif, Ponneri, dated 19.3.2009 made in E.A.No.57 of 2008 in e.P.No.25 of 1992 in O.S.No.918 of 1975 in allowing the application.

2. C.R.P.(NPD).No.406 of 2010 : This revision is directed against the fair and decretal order passed by the learned District Munsif, Ponneri, dated 19.3.2009 made in E.P.No.25 of 1992 in O.S.No.918 of 1975 in dismissing the E.P.

3. In both the revision petitions, the petitioner was the petitioner in the execution petition in E.P.No.25 o 1992 in O.S.No.918 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Ponneri. The revision petitioner was the respondent in the application filed in E.A.No.57 of 2008. The respondents in both the revisions were the decree holder and the judgment debtor before the execution Court and the first respondent herein has filed the petition in E.A.No.57 of 2008.

4. The revision petitioner herein has filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.25 of 1992 in O.S.No.918 of 1975 ranking the respondents herein as respondents in the execution petition and sought for the execution of the decree passed against the second respondent herein to deliver the suit property after removing the superstructures. In the said execution petition, the first respondent was the decree holder who remained absent and was set exparte. In the said execution proceedings, the application under section 47 C.P.C was filed by the second respondent (judgment debtor) for dismissal of the E.P. on the ground of non-maintainability since he is said to have purchased the said property from the decree holder itself on 19.9.1991 and the said claim petition was dismissed by the execution Court, against which civil revision petitions were preferred before this Court in C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.583 and 584 of 1998 and the same were disposed of on 23.4.2007 holding the claim of the judgment debtor as the owner of the property was disallowed and therefore, the Execution application was dismissed and the orders passed by the Execution Court was thus, set aside and the revision was allowed. The said order was further reviewed by this Court and the review application filed by the judgment debtor was also dismissed. The SLP preferred by the judgment debtor before the Honourable Apex Court was also dismissed by confirming the orders passed by this Court in the revision dated 16.7.2007. On the basis of the order passed by this Court, the Execution Court had passed an order of delivery of the property in favour of the revision petitioner after removing the super structures in the suit property by the judgment debtor. However, the original decree holder who remained exparte has filed an application to set aside the exparte order passed against her in the E.P. with an application to stay the proceedings and also the application to dismiss the E.P. which is not sustainable. The execution Court had taken all the three applications filed by the original decree holder and the E.P. filed by the revision petitioner together and had passed an order, allowing the application to dismiss the E.P. in E.A.No.57of 2008 and accordingly, the E.P. was also dismissed. The other two applications to set aside the exparte order and to stay the proceedings were dismissed as infructuous.

5. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Execution Court in E.A.No.57 of 2008 dated 19.3.2009 in allowing the said application to dismiss the E.P. and also against the dismissal of E.P.No.25 of 1992 in O.S.No.918 of 1997, these revisions have been filed by the revision petitioner.

6. Heard, Mr. S. Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in both the revisions and T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondents in both the revisions.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit in his arguments that the lower Court failed to note that the first respond