JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - In this revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision of the executing Court allowing an application filed by the opposite party-tenant u/s 47 and holding the Execution Case as not maintainable is assailed. 2. The Petitioner-landlord obtained an order from the House Rent Controller for eviction, of the opposite party tenant. When execution of the order of eviction was levied, the opposite party-tenant came up with an application u/s 47 of the Code of CPC challenging the excitability of the decree on the ground that the Petitioner-landlord had lost title to the premises in question by reason of vesting of the property, which was an estate, pursuant to the vesting notification under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The Petitioner-landlords while admitting the vesting pleaded, that steps had been taken by the ex-intermediary for the settlement of the property and the matter was sub judice. The executing Court, being of the view that title of the Petitioner-landlord to the property had been extinguished by the vesting, sustained objection to the executability of the decree and dismissed the Execution Case. This has given rise to this revision. 3. Shri Nayak, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-landlord, contended that having regard to the pendency of the application by the landlord-ex-intermediary for settlement of the property under the provisions of Section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the executing Court was in error in holding that the order for eviction was not executable. Shri Bose, the learned Counsel for the opposite party-tenant, however, contended that inasmuch as by reason of the vesting the title of the landlord stood extinguished the Petitioner was not entitled to execute the decree. 4. It is not disputed that a tenant is not estopped from the pleading subsequent extinguishment of the title. It is also not disputed that the premises in question was an estate or a part of an estate and vested in the State Government pursuant to the notification under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that an application has been made under the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 3-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act for settlement of the property in question with the landlord. Hence, the executing Court was in error. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that an application has been made under the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 3-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act for settlement of the property in question with the landlord. Hence, the executing Court was in error. In Shivashankar Prasad Shah and Others Vs. Baikunth Nath Singh and Others it is observed: ...Though in fact the vesting of the Estates and the deemed settlement of raiyat's rights in respect of certain classes of lands included in the Estates took place simultaneously, in law the two must be treated as different transactions; first there was a vesting of the Estates in the State absolutely and free of all encumbrances. Then followed the deemed settlement by the State of raiyat's tights on the quondam proprietors... In Ramakrishna Deo v. Laxmi Narayan Pujari 39 (1973) C.L.T. 551, this Court observed: Vesting and flowing of consequences take place almost simultaneously, though under the fiction of law indicated therein the State acquires title to the entire estate and immediately thereafter resettles such lands with the intermediary which are deemed to have been settled with him under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Such settlement takes place automatically....All settlements found subsequently by such Collector to have taken place must operate with effect from date of vesting as indicated in Section 6 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act.... In Bhagaban Rath v. Ananda Das ILR 1983 Cutt 914. G.K. Misra, J. observed: ...The process of vesting and saving operates simultaneously. The properties so saved continue to be the properties of the ex-intermediaries without the title being in any way extinguished at any time subject to payment .of fair and equitable rent." (underlining supplied.) In Brundaban Chandra Dhir alias Krushna Chandra S Cngh v. Natabar Chandra Dhir ILR 1983 Cutt 914, a Division Bench of this Court observed: ...Where...lands of the proprietor are deemed to have been settled on a raiyati basis, then is no change in the property and that if there was a mortgage or charge on the estate, prior to the date of vesting, there will be no bar to a suit or proceeding continuing in respect of such bakast lands also, notwithstanding the change in their character, from bakast to raiyati lands.... It was brought to the notice of the executing Court that an application u/s 6 read with Section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act had been filed by the ex-intermediary Petitioner and the same was pending disposal. If the claim application was allowed, the property should be deemed to have been settled with the intermediary from the date of vesting, i.e., the vesting and settlement would be simultaneous. If, however, the Petitioner's claim was negatived, there would be end of the matter. The vesting would become final and operative from the date of vesting. - In case, however, a settlement is made, though the decision might be taken an a later date, the settlement would relate back to the date of vesting so as to make the vesting and settlement simultaneous. Where an application has not been made within the prescribed time for settlement, or where an application has been rejected, the right to possession stands extinguished as laid down in Section 8-A (3) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Hence, in the premises, it would be unjust and unfair to decide against the Petitioner-landlord on the ground that with the vesting his title to the property has stood extinguished. Such a decision prejudicial to him may not be set tight even if he succeeds to secure a settlement under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. It may so happen that by the time the settlement comes, execution would be barred by limitation or the person denying title might acquire title by prescription. Such consequences should be avoided, if possible. Therefore) it is proper in such situations to stay further proceedings until the final disposal of the claim made by the landlord-ex-intermediary u/s 6 read with Section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. That way neither party is prejudiced. The ultimate decision in the Execution Case would follow the final outcome of the claim application filed by the ex-intermediary. 5. I would, therefore, allow the revision, vacate the order dated 20-11-1981 passed by the learned Munsif, Puri) in Miscellaneous Case No. 144 of 1981 and stay further proceedings in Execution Case No. 41 of 1980, pending in the Court of the learned Munsif, Puri, until final disposal of the claim application. But, in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.