O.S.No.224 of 1995 was filed by the respondents herein for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for injunction. The suit was decreed. Challenging the said judgment and decree, A.S.No.71 of 199 was filed before this Court. The said appeal was also dismissed and the decree has become final. The decree was put in execution.
2. In the execution, a challenge was made by the petitioner by taking up a contention that he is a cultivating tenant residing in the property and therefore, the matter has to be referred to the Land Tribunal for adjudication under Section 125(3) of the Land Reforms Act. Along with that, O.P.(C)2981/14 & 189/15 -: 2 :- another application was made thereby requesting the court below to defer the execution proceedings till a decision is taken by the Land Tribunal in the proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal. The said proceedings were initiated after the dismissal of the appeal. The court below has dismissed the IAs.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Much discussion is not required to conclude that the contentions taken up by the judgment debtor cannot stand for a moment. Even the proceedings initiated before the Land Tribunal after the dismissal of the appeal is not maintainable, as it is hit by constructive res judicata and the principles of lis pendens.
5. Regarding the reference to the Land Tribunal, it is not possible to refer such questions at this stage. When the plea was not taken up at the trial stage, the petitioner is estopped from seeking reference to the Land Tribunal, as O.P.(C)2981/14 & 189/15 -: 3 :- the said question does not arise in the execution stage. A catena of decisions on the points are cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. Matters being so, both the original petitions are devoid of merits, and are only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, both these Original Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE ul/-