JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The decree-holder is the petitioner before this Court against the older passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepur, confirmed in appeal by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur, arising out of an application u/s 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner before this Court had executed a lease deed in favour of the opposite party in respect of about one acre of land for Dalua cultivation in the year 1994 on the condition that the opposite party would pay 7 bags of paddy to the petitioner. Due to non-payment of the said paddy the petitioner filed M. S. No. 1 of 1994 and the said suit was decreed. For realisation of the decretal amount, the present Execution Case was levied. In the Execution Case the opposite party filed an application u/s 47, C. P. C. stating that the decree is inexecutable in view of the fact that the suit was barred u/s 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short 'the O. L, R. Act'). The case of the opposite party in the application u/s 47, C. P. C. is that he was inducted as a tenant in respect of the said land in the year 1994 and the O.L R. Act prohibits any action for taking the land and if a transfer by way of lease is made, it is void and inoperative u/s 6(2) of the O. L. R, Act. The claim of the petitioner, if any, should be adjudicated by the Revenue Officer as provided under that Act and the civil court lacks jurisdiction u/s 67 of the said Act. 3. In the objection filed by the petitioner it was contended that the lease was only for one year and the question raised in the Execution Case had never been raised in the suit and therefore, cannot be allowed to be raised at a belated stage in the execution proceeding. It was further contended in the objection that the suit was filed for realisation of the outstanding amount which was due to the petitioner and is not a dispute between a raiyat and a tenant. It is not a dispute as claimed by the opposite party so as to come within the purview of the O.L.R. Act. 4. It was further contended in the objection that the suit was filed for realisation of the outstanding amount which was due to the petitioner and is not a dispute between a raiyat and a tenant. It is not a dispute as claimed by the opposite party so as to come within the purview of the O.L.R. Act. 4. The trial court allowed the application u/s 47, C. P. C. on the ground that the opposite party having been inducted as a tenant in respect of the land, the provisions of the O. L. R. Act are applicable and therefore, the suit was barred u/s 67 of the Act. In appeal Sled by the present petitioner, the same view was taken and the appeal was also dismissed. 5. The learned counsel Shri N. C Pati appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting for the sake of argument the contention of the opposite party that he was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit land, the same having been created after commencement of the O. L. R. Act, is void and inoperative and the persons so inducted as tenants cannot have any right under the O.L.R. Act to declare them as tenant. Shri Pati has relied upon the decision reported in Vaisayaraju Chandra Mauli Raju Vs. Vaisayaraju Subramanyam Raju and Another. In the aforesaid decision the Court has held that u/s 6(2) of the O. L. R. Act no tenancy could be created after commencement of the said Act and therefore, recourse to the benefits under the O. L. R. Act could not be taken. The admitted position in the present case is that the opposite party was inducted as a tenant only for the year 1994, that is much after commencement of the O.L R. Act and therefore, no tenancy right could have been created in favour of the opposite party commencement of that Act as provsded u/s 6(2) thereof. Therefore, petition filed by the opposite parcy u/s 47, C. P, C. had no merit. 6. I, accordingly, allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below. There will be no order as to costs. 7. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed