U.C.SHARMA, J.

1. This application in revision is directed against an order dated 28.5.1977 passed by the Munsif, East Muzaffarpur, in a suit for redemption holding that the suit stood abated under Sec. 4 (c) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation mentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called as "the Act").

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants-first party for redemption of a mortgage bond dated 23-6-1947 executed by one Bigan Singh, father of the defendants-second party, in favour of defendants-1st party. The subject-matter of the mortgage was lands of plots Nos. 204 and 281 of Khata No. 89. The plaintiffs case is that they purchased the suit lands from the defendants-second party by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 18-12-1972. The mortgage amount of Rs. 400.00 was left with the purchaser for redemption of the mortgage. It was alleged that the plaintiffs after their purchase, tendered the amount to the defendant-first party which having been refused, was deposited in Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant-first party did not withdraw the amount. Hence the plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption and recovery of possession and mesne profits.

3. During the pendency of the suit the defendants, besides filing written statement denying the plaintiffs claim, filed a petition under Sec. 4 (c) of the Act alleging that the lands covered by the suit, lay in the area where the consolidation proceeding is in progress and prayed that it should be held that the suit had abated, inasmuch as, the suit was for declaration and adjudication relating to interest in land. It was opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs who filed a rejoiner contending that the lands covered by the mortgage admittedly belonged to Bigan Singh who had executed usufructuary mortgage in favour of the defendants first party. The plaintiffs having purchased the suit lands from the mortgagor is entitled to redeem the said mortgage. To such a suit. Sec. 4 (c) of the Act was not applicable. Thus, the question arose whether a suit for redemption is covered by the provisions of Sec. 4 (c) of the Act. The learned Munsif heard the parties on this question and relying on the case of Ram Adhar Singh V/s. Ram Roop Singh, (AIR 1968 SC 714) held that the suit had abated. Being aggrieved by the said order the plaintiffs have come up in revision.

4. The case came up for hearing before Shivanugrah Narain, J. sitting singly. The question for consideration before his Lordship was whether the provisions of Sec. 4 (c) of the Act are attracted to a suit for redemption. The argument before his Lordship was that there was an apparent conflict between two Bench decisions of this court, namely, the case of Subhag Sah V/s. Doma Sah, (1979 BBCJ (HC) 722) and the case of Bijli Thakur V/s. Rameshwar Thakur, (1977 Pat LJR 410) and that the former case required reconsideration. In his Lordships opinion, the point raised was arguable. The case was, accordingly, orderer to be placed before a Division Bench. This is how the case came before us for hearing and disposal.

5. The point raised before his Lordship was repeated before us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and discussed in their various aspects. The substantial question, however, is whether a suit for redemption is hit by the provisions of Sec. 4 (c) of the Act.

6. Sec. 4 (c) of the Act runs thus:-

"Every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration or rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated." It would appear that under the afor