JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.12.2018 passed in REA.No.159/2018 against EP.No.24/2018 in O.S.No.125/2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Court at Krishnagiri.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in REA.No.159/2018 against the REP.No.24/2018 in O.S.No.125/2010 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

3. The petitioner, admittedly is a third party to the proceedings in O.S.No.125/2010. The said Suit in O.S.No.125/2010 before the Principal Sub Court, Krishnagiri was filed by the 4th respondent in the Civil Revision Petition for partition of 1/4th share in the Suit property.

4. It is not in dispute that the Preliminary Decree was granted. It is also not in dispute that after the Preliminary Decree one of the sharers died and therefore, the plaintiff/4th respondent applied for modification of shares and the Preliminary Decree which was passed in the Suit was modified by granting 1/3rd share to the 4th respondent/plaintiff.

5. It is admitted that the Suit in O.S.No.125/2010 is also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the Suit from dealing with the property which is the subject matter of the Suit. Despite the fact, that the Preliminary Decree and a decree for permanent injunction was granted on 12.01.2011 and the subsequent decree modifying the share from 1/4th to 1/3rd was given by another decree dated 06.08.2013, the revision petitioner has purchased the Suit property from the 2nd defendant in the Suit by a Sale Deed dated 29.10.2012.

6. The Sale Deed itself is in utter disregard to the decree for injunction granted against the 2nd defendant, the vendor of the revision petitioner. It is also stated by the plaintiff that the sale is a fraudulent one. It is admitted that the sale in favour of the revision petitioner is during the pendency of proceedings. The sale is not only fraudulent but also in utter disregard and disobedience to the decree granted by the Court in the Suit in O.S.No.125/2010.

7. The revision petitioner earlier filed a petition to implead herself as party to the Execution Petition. It is admitted that the said application was dismissed on the ground that the remedy for the revision petitioner is to proceed against the 2nd defendant and not to claim any right over the property on the basis of the Sale Deed which was executed, during the pendency of proceedings and against an order granting injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property. Though the petitioner states that she is innocent and bonafide purchaser, the fact that the sale in her favour is hit by lis pendens and that the same was in violation of decree for injunction granted by the Competent Court are admitted.

8. The application filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.605/2015 to implead himself as a party to the Suit in O.S.No.125/2010 was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order before this Court in CRP.No.4473/2017. This Court after recording the admitted facts that the Sale Deed obtained by the revision petitioner is hit by lis pendens and the application is filed by the revision petitioner at the final decree proceeding, was of the view that the belated application filed by the revision petitioner cannot be entertained and that it is open to the revision petitioner to proceed against the 2nd defendant in the Suit independently.

9. It is stated that against the order passed in this Civil Revision Petition, the revision petitioner has filed a Review Application in SR.No.20219/2018. Very strangely, the revision petitioner has also filed an application in E.A.No.159/2018. In the meanwhile, it is admitted that the final decree application was allowed and final decree was passed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed Execution Petition in EP.No.24/2018 for delivery of property allott