THAKUR KAMTA SINGH AND ORS. Vs. PT. GANESH PRASAD DUBE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal by Defendants from a decree passed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Gyanpur. It appears that the property in dispute is situate in a village in district Varanasi and this village has been brought under consolidation operations. The learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the appeal has abated Under Section 5 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). But they are not agreed as to whether the suit itself has abated. According to Mr. K.N. Seth appearing for the Defendants -Appellants, the suit also has abated. According to Mr. A.P. Pande appearing for the Plaintiffs -Respondents, although the first appeal has abated, the suit has not abated.

(2.) MR . A.P. Pande relies upon Smt. Ram Kuar v. Jangi, 1964 RD 310. It was held in that case that an execution proceeding is a proceeding which does not originate in itself but follows a decree passed in a suit and consequently is different from a suit. There is nothing in the Act to show that the word "suit" in Section 5 of the Act has been used in a sense so as to include execution proceedings. Hence execution of decrees was not to be stayed Under Section 5.

(3.) THE point has to be decided on the language of Section 5 of the Act. Sub -section (2) of Section 5 states: