This is an ex parte application for leave to issue writ of possession under Order 47 rule 1. I gave oral judgment and ordered that leave be granted in terms of application.

My grounds are as follows:

(1) The plaintiff had obtained judgment to recover possession of the premises known as 96, Padungan Road, Kuching, by order of court dated September 15, 1977 in CS/K.120/75 which judgment was entered by consent of the defendant's legal personal representative. The 1st respondent being the widow of the deceased defendant who acted as legal personal representative, cannot now deny that the order is binding on her on the ground that she is not a party to the action, as stated in paragraph 2 of her affidavit in opposition.

In my opinion, she cannot blow hot and cold, admitting in one breath the premises was given out on licence to defendant and consenting to judgment for possession by the plaintiff and in another breath denying that the judgment is binding on her. There is no ground showing how she derived her separate interest in the premises if she has any.

(2) It was contended that the application by Summons in Chambers is not regular by reason that Order 54 rule 1 Rul