JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. - This is a defendants appeal arising out of suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit on 1-2-1982. The appeal against the Judgement of the trial court has been dismissed as is evident from the judgement of the appellate court dated 27-1-1983. Aggrieved by the Judgements of the courts below the defendants have approached this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. An application has been moved by the counsel for the appellants dated 11-12-1988 probably filed on 15-12-88. The prayer contained in the application is to abate the appeal together with the suit filed by the plaintiff Respondent under the provisions of Section 5 (2) (a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants 1 am not satisfied that this is a fit case where the second appeal together with the suit should be abated under the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act specially in view of the relief granted by the trial Court. 4. However, it has been brought to my notice that the disputed land has come under the operation of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. On 1-9-1983 the execution of decree has been stayed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of he present case the respondents cannot get possession over the disputed land till the dispute between the parties is decided by the consolidation authorities. It would be open to the consolidation authorities to entertain legal points raised on behalf of the appellants and the respondents and decide them strictly in accordance with law. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellants that the consolidation authorities shall not hear the appellant and decide the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with the Judgements of the Civil Court, it is sufficient to observe that the Judgements of the Civil Court have not become final as yet, therefore, it would be open to the consolidation authorities to decide the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. 5. At present I am not satisfied that it is a fit case where the appeal together with the suit should be abated under Section 5 (2) (a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 6. The application is accordingly rejected.