The court's consistent practice and the provision under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure influenced the decision not to grant a stay in the execution proceeding with regard to agricultural lands.

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.3.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge staying the execution proceeding during the pendency of the second appeal before this Court.

2. It is an admitted fact that the suit relates to the agricultural land measuring 1 bigha 7 kathas 12 dhurs out of plot no. 431 khata no. 79 of village Doma Ghat, district East Champaran and 11 kathas 10 dhurs of agricultural land in villages Chimtaha and Chaubey Tola. The matter arises out of the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration of title and other relief. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The appeal filed by the appellants was allowed against which the defendants respondents of this appeal have filed second appeai in which an order has been passed by the learned Single Judge staying the execution proceeding which has been levied by the plaintiffs.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. This is the consistent practice of this Court not to grant stay in execution proceeding with regard to the agricultural lands. The reason being that in case of success, the successful party if not in possession will be put in possesson under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The submission advanced on behalf of the counsel for the respondents that crops have been grown on the land and as such execution proceeding should be stayed, does not appeal to us.

5. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. However, the executing court will put the appellants in possession after the crops standing at present are harvested by the respondents.