BHOLA YADAV Vs. YADUNANDAN PD.NADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LA . No. 5726 of 2006 is a petition under Sec.151 CPC wherein prayer has been made by the petitioner -plaintiff -respondents for execution of decree over Schedule -ll lands under decree of the courts below excluding that portion of the land over which stay of the execution has been granted vide this Court 'sorder dated 26.4.2004. In this I.A. petition, incidentally it has also been mentioned by the petitioner -plaintiff -respondents that the appellants have also done some acts of dispossession of the plaintifr -respondents from Schedule -I lands but the learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff -respondents does not press this matter nor raised it at this stage saying that those maters relating to lands under Schedule -I can be considered and any relief could be made available to them only after the judgment under second appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff -respondents also submits that he has taken some steps for some relief available to them by filing petition before the courts below. Thus, the matter relating to Schedule -I lands is not raised or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff -respondents at this stage. This has to be mentioned here that the petitioner -plaintiff -respondents had filed the suit before the trial court with a prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession over Schedule -ll lands and declaration of title and confirmation of possession over Schedule -I lands. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the declaration of the title of the plaintiff -respondents over Schedule -ll lands was made and recovery of possession over Schedule -ll lands was also ordered. So far the lands under Schedule -I are concerned, the trial court granted a decree of declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the petitioner -plaintiff -respondents over it with a further declaration of title and recovery of possession from Schedule -ll lands and declaration of title and confirmation of possession over Schedule -I lands. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the declaration of the title of plaintiff -respondents over Schedule -ll lands was made and recovery of possession over Schedule -ll lands was also ordered. So far the lands under Schedule -I are concerned, the trial court granted a decree of declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the petitioner - plaintiff -respondents over it. The decree of the trial court was confirmed by the lower appellate court. Thereafter this second appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the second appeal, the appellant -defendants filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for staying the execution of the decree in the court below under Execution Case No. 2 of 1997, so far the lands under Schedule -ll were concerned. This court vide Para

(3.) BUT the grievance of the petitioner -plaintiff -respondents under this I.A. Petition is that despite the stay granted by this Court over a portion of Schedule -ll lands, they are not being made available to proceed with the execution over the remaining portion of Schedule -ll lands over which there is no stay of the execution of the decree.