LAKHPATI SINGH Vs. RAGHUNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings under Section 144, C.P.C. on the ground that a notification under Section. 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been issued in respect of the village in which the land in dispute lies.

(2.) LEARNED counsel has contended that after the trial court's decree it was put into execution and possession was obtained by the petitioner. Thereafter an appeal had been filed by the judgment-debtor. During the pendency of the ap peal consolidation proceedings commenc ed. The appeal and the suit accordingly abated under Section 5 of the Consolida tion of Holdings Act. The judgment-deb tors thereupon applied under Section 144, C.P.C. for restitution. The court below has directed the restitution. The peti tioner has now challenged that order through this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel contends that the amended Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act refers to all proceedings and hence proceedings under Section 144. C.P.C. will also be governed by Section 5 (2) and because proceedings regarding this land are pend ing before the consolidation authorities, proceedings under Section 144, C.P.C. should also stand abated under Section 5 (2). The contention is that clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 should be deemed to refer to proceedings under Section 144, C.P.C. also and as such the proceedings for restitution should also be deemed abated under clause (a) of Sec tion 5 (2) of the Act. Section 5 (2) and (b) read as under :