JUDGMENT : U.C. Srivastava, J. These connected revision applications between the same parties arise out of objections u/s 47 Code of Civil Procedure. The decree holder opposite party filed a suit for possession in respect of agriculture plots against judgment debtor in the year 1954 before the court of Munsif. The trial court dismissed the suit but appeal against the same was allowed by the first appellate court. Therefore, the decree holder moved an application for execution, the proceedings in which were stayed by the High Court before which a second appeal was preferred by the judgment debtor. The appeal was dismissed on merits in the year 1972, though before that, notification u/s 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had been published. 2. The appeal was thus decided after the publication of the notification and it seems that before the High Court, the Appellant took a chance instead of applying for abatement of the appeal as well as the suit. 3. The execution proceedings, therefore, started and the judgment debtor filed an objection for abatement of the said proceedings on the ground that village had been notified under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said application was contested mainly on the ground that the decree became final and execution proceedings are not covered u/s 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The contention raised by the judgment debtor prevailed before the executing court, but in revision the revisional court took a contrary view and held that execution proceedings were not liable to abate. 4. As there was conflict between two decisions of this Court of Hon'ble Jagdish Sahai, J. and the other of Hon'ble S.N. Katju, J. who made a reference to the decision of Hon'ble Jagdish Sahai, J. this matter was referred to a Division Bench and that is why these revision applications came up for consideration before us. The question for consideration is as to whether the execution proceedings are also to abate u/s 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act because of the publication of the notification u/s 4(2) of the said Act. 5. The question for consideration is as to whether the execution proceedings are also to abate u/s 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act because of the publication of the notification u/s 4(2) of the said Act. 5. Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act at the relevant time as it stood amended by U.P. Act No. XIII of 1965 and thereafter by U.P. Act No. XXI of 1966, reads as follows : “All proceedings for correction of the records and all suits for declaration of right and interests over land, or for possession of land, or for partition, pending before any authority or court whether of first instance, appeal, reference or revision shall stand stayed, but without prejudice to the right of the persons affected to agitate the right or interests in dispute in the said proceedings or suits before the consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder. (ii) The findings of consolidation authorities in proceedings under this Act in respect of such right or interest in the land, shall be accepted by the authority or court before whom the proceedings or suit was pending which may, on communication thereof by the parties concerned, proceed with the proceedings or suit, as the case may be.” 6. Before 1965 Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood substituted by U.P. (Amendment) Act No. XXIV of 1956 reads as follows: 5. Before 1965 Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood substituted by U.P. (Amendment) Act No. XXIV of 1956 reads as follows: 5. Effect of declaration-When the declaration u/s 4 has been published in the Gazette, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall from the date specified thereunder till the publication of the notification u/s 52 in the official Gazette to the effect that the consolidation operations have been closed, ensue in the area to which the declaration relates, namely, (a) the district or the local area, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations from the specified date, and the duty of preparing and maintaining Khasra and the Annual Register, under Chapter III of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall stand transferred to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and (b) all proceedings for the correction of any such records pending before any court or authority shall be stayed but without prejudice to the right of the persons affected to agitate the question before the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Sub-section (8) of Section 8, in proceedings commenced under and in accordance with Section 10. 7. The view of Hon'ble Jagdish Sahai, J. in the case Smt. Ram Kaur v. Jangi 1964 ALJ 718, was that the execution proceedings are not to abate. 8. A similar matter came up for consideration before Hon'ble S.N. Katju, J. who in a review application (208 of 1966) in Second Appeal No. 3256 of 1958 decided on 5-4-67 made a passing reference to the case Smt. Ram Kaur v. Jangi (supra), and held that the word 'appeal' u/s 5(b) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will also include an execution appeal. 9. In another unreported case Lare Kunwari v. Shri Pokhan Singh Civil Revision No. 878 of 1970, Hon'ble S.N. Katju, reiterated the very same view and observed :- Every suit and proceeding u/s 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would cover execution second appeal as well and the relief sought in an execution first appeal would necessarily be in respect of declaration of rights and interest in any land in the area or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act. It may be that the court had adjudicated upon the rights of the parties, but subsequently proceedings started in the execution court. Such proceedings would be covered by the aforesaid provisions.” Hon'ble Jagdish Sahai, J. in Smt. Ram Kaur (supra) observed ; “In 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. The Act does not define the word 'suit' and there is nothing in it to show that the word 'suit' in Section 5 of the Act has been used in a sense to include execution proceedings. Hence execution of decree was not to be stayed u/s 5 .... Section 49 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil or the revenue court to entertain any suit in future with regard to a matter which would have been disposed off by the consolidation of holdings authorities ; neither this provision nor any other in the Act wipe away or supersede a decree already passed before the Consolidation of holding operations started. 10. A perusal of Section 5(b) as it stood at the relevant time before its amendment in 1965 shows that all proceedings for correction of the records and all suits for declaration of rights and interests over land, or for possession of land or for partition, pending before any authority or court whether of first instance, appeal, reference or revision shall stand abated. 11. Thus only the proceedings for correction of records which obviously do not include execution proceedings are to abate or any suit or proceedings in respect of right and interest over any land for declaration or adjudication of any right which can be decided by the consolidation authorities only are to abate. 12. The execution is the enforcement of decree and orders by process of court, so as to enable the judgment debtor to reap the fruits of the judgment. The execution is to enforce what has already been decided, which may even mean that it excludes declaration of right and title over a particular property which has already been decided by a competent court of law. 13. The execution is to enforce what has already been decided, which may even mean that it excludes declaration of right and title over a particular property which has already been decided by a competent court of law. 13. The scope of execution proceedings is not the same as the scope of suit, appeal or revision arising from them and it seems that for this reason the legislature has excluded the word 'execution' from Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the legislature never intended to deprive a party from the fruits of the decree which has already become final. 14. From a perusal of Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act it is clear that only those proceedings in respect of which proceedings can be taken before the consolidation authorities are to abate. The relevant Section in this behalf will be Section 9(1)(a)(i) which reads as follows: Their rights in relation to the land-Thus the consolidation authorities are only concerned with the determination of rights and liabilities of a tenure holder or a person in respect of the land only. The consolidation authorities cannot execute a decree which has already been passed and has become final. The execution proceedings start only after determination of the rights and liabilities in relation to land by a competent court of law. 15. Sri H.N. Tilhari, Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the words 'suit and proceedings' are wide enough to include execution proceedings. In this connection he relied on two cases- Dokku Bhushayya Vs. Katragadda Ramakrishnayya, AIR 1962 SC 1886 and Mohammad Habibul-Ullah v. Tikam Chand ILR All 57. It may be true that the word 'suit' may even include execution proceedings for the purpose of transferring of the case or for the purpose of conducting proceedings on behalf of the minor, but the word 'suit' will not always include execution proceedings. In the case D. Bhusayya (supra) reference to the old CPC too has been made. 16. In Thakur Prasad v. Fakir Ullah (ILR All 106) the Privy Council observed : It is not suggested that Section 373 of the CPC would of its own force apply to execution proceedings. The suggestion is that it is applied by force of Section 647. 16. In Thakur Prasad v. Fakir Ullah (ILR All 106) the Privy Council observed : It is not suggested that Section 373 of the CPC would of its own force apply to execution proceedings. The suggestion is that it is applied by force of Section 647. But the whole of Chapter XIX of the Code, consisting of 121 sections is devoted to the procedure in executions, and it would be surprising if the framers of the Code had intended to apply another procedure mostly unsuitable by saying in general terms that the procedure for suit should be followed so far as possible. Their Lordships think that proceeding spoken of in Section 647 include original matters in the nature of suits such as proceedings in probates, guardianships and so forth and do not include executions. 17. In Lakhpati Singh Vs. Raghunath Singh and Others, AIR 1974 All 479 a Division Bench of this Court held that “restitution proceedings u/s 144, CPC are not contemplated by Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and hence do not abate under that section.” 18. The word 'appeal' thus, which has been used in Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act obviously does not include the appeal arising out of execution proceedings as it contemplates appeal arising out of a suit, the basis of which is a plaint. Thus, the word “appeal or revision” which have been used in Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act do not include the appeal or revision arising out of an execution proceeding as the same does not decide the right and title of parties, but is concerned only with certain matters pertaining to what has already been held and it cannot be reopened by execution court. 19. In this view we thus agree with what has been broadly held by Hon'ble Jagdish Sahai, J. in Smt. Ram Kaur (supra) and overrule the law laid down by Hon'ble S.N. Katju, J. in the above mentioned cases. 20. The revision applications are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.