JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - This application u/s 115, CPC by the Decree-holders is direct ed against the order of the executing Court holding the decree to be inexecutable on accounting the petition u/s 47, CPC by the opposite party (judgment-debtor). 2. The Petitioners filed Title Suit No. 35 of 1978-1 in the Court of the Munsif, Balasore for a declaration that the sale deed executed by their father transferring the suit property was void and not binding on them and for recovery of possession from the Defendant. In the suit, the opposite party did not appear despite service of notice and was set ex parte. The suit was decreed ex parte against the Defendant. The decree was put to execution in Execution Case No. 52 of 1978. In the said proceeding the opposite party filed an application u/s 47 of the CPC challenging executability of the decree mainly on the ground that at the time when the decree was passed the suit property had been included in the Notification issued u/s 3 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short 'the Consolidation Act'). Therefore the suit having abated, the decree was a nullity and was inexecutable. The executing Court by the impugned order, as noticed earlier, upheld the objection and dismissed the execution case as not maintainable. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners mainly raised two contentions, namely: (i) that the objection relating to abatement of the suit was barred by principle of constructive res judicata, and, (ii) that no material was produced before the executing Court to come to the conclusion that the suit had abated u/s 4 (4) of the Consolidation Act. The position is well settled now that the principle of res judicata embodied in Section 11 of the CPC are applicable not only to successive proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding. In Bishnu Mohan Mallik v. Dhruba Naik C. R No. 130 of 1979, decided on 20-8-1986, a division bench of this Court considering the plea of non-executability of the decree, came to hold that the objection was hit by the principle of res judicata since an issue had been raised in the suit regarding its maintainability and the same having not been pressed, was decided against the Defendant judgment debtor. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said decision the Court recognised the position as well settled that u/s 4 (4) of the Consolidation Act, abatement of the suit or proceeding was not automatic and it could be held to have abated only on an order to that effect being passed by the Court. In the case of Sree Madana Gopalaswami Varu of Ballipadu Vs. Vanga Padmaraju and Others the principle of constructive res judicata was held to be applicable to execution proceedings. It was further decided therein that the principle applied with equal force to an ex parte decree. Admittedly, the suit was disposed of ex parte after due service of notice on the Defendant-opposite party. The plea of abatement, which was available to the Defendant to be raised in the suit was not raised before the trial Court and when the ex parte decree was passed there was no order in the suit that it abated u/s 4 (4) of the Consolidation Act. In these circumstances, the position is manifest that the bar of constructive res judicata squarely applies to the objection raised by the opposite party u/s 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the suit had abated and therefore the decree was inexecutable. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the executing Court was under the impression that the abatement of the suit under the Consolidation Act was automatic. Apparently the learned Munsif had not taken pains to read the provisions of Section 4 (4) of the Consolidation Act which expressly provides that on an order to the effect being passed the suit could abate. Coming to the second question, it has to be reiterated that in the absence of any order by the Court, the suit could not be held to have abated. Even while raising the objection in the application u/s 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, no particulars of the notification under the Consolidation Act were given. No material was also placed at any subsequent stage of the proceeding to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that the suit should be held to have abated u/s 4 (4) of the Consoli dation Act. No material was also placed at any subsequent stage of the proceeding to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that the suit should be held to have abated u/s 4 (4) of the Consoli dation Act. In the absence of any such material and in the absence of any order to that effect, the executing Court dearly erred in dismissing the execution case as not maintainable on the ground of abatement of the suit. It may be noticed here that in the Division Bench decision referred to earlier, it is laid down that the plea of abatement of the suit under the Consolidation Act is not one that comes within the purview of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Court, but it may at best amount to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity if the Court passed the decree in ignorance of the Consolidation proceeding covering the suit lands. On the analysis in the foregoing paragraphs, both the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners have to be accepted. The civil revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The execution case shall proceed and shall be disposed of in accordance with law. There will be no order for costs of this proceeding. Final Result : Allowed