UDAY SINHA, J.

1. This application in revision by the defendants 1st party and defendants 2nd party is directed against the order of the learned Munsif dated 24.08.1978 by which he rejected the application of the defendants (petitioners) praying that the Court should hold that the suit had abated in terms of Sec. 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The facts leading to filing of the present application lie within a narrow compass. The plaintiffs and defendants 1st and 2nd parties are neighbours. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of right of easement to flow drain water on a strip of land measuring 4 links x 73« links. After a pleader commissioner had been deputed, it was found that the land, over which easement was claimed by the plaintiffs, was only 3 finks x66 links out of plot 143 of khata 125. The plaintiffs also claimed right of easement to go over that narrow strip of land (referred to as Koli in the plaint) for the purpose of repairing their house. The plaintiffs further prayer was that the defendants be permanently restrained by injunction from blocking the drain which may not interfere with the free flow of the drain water from the house of the plaintiffs.

3. The contesting defendants, after they had filed their written statement before the trial Court, filed an application stating that the suit had abated in terms of Sec. 4 (c) of the Act. The trial Court after hearing the parties, rejected the application and held that the suit had not abated. Hence the present application by the defendants. 3A. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order of the Court below was erroneous and invalid inasmuch as the suit was barred in terms of Sec. 4 (c) of the Act. Although the Court below (held), the application of the defendants was in terms of S.4 (c) of the Act. Mr. Saran for the petitioners stated before this Court that S.4 (c) was not attracted to the facts of his case but that the entertainment of the suit was barred in terms of Sec. 4 (b) of the Act and, therefore, the trial Court should have dismissed the suit as not maintainable in terms of Sec. 4 (b) of the Act.

4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Act is not at all attracted to the facts of this case. Neither was the entertainment of a suit of the present nature barred nor can a suit of such a nature instituted prior to issuance of notification in terms of Sec.3 of the Act abate.

5. The Act is meant to provide for the consolidation of the holdings and prevention of fragmentation. In pursuance of this object, Sec.3 of the Act lays down that the State Government may issue notification declaring its intention to make a scheme for the consolidation of holidings in any particular area. Sec. 4 lays down the effect of the notification under Sec.3 of the Act. It is necessary here to quote the provisions of Sec. 4 (b) and (c) of the Act, in so far as they are relevant,-

"4. Upon the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Sec.3 in the official gazette the consequences, as herein after set forth, shall subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified in the notification till the close of the consolidation "operation, ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely: x x x

(b) no suit or other legal proceeding, in respect of any land in such areas shall be entertained in any Court, and in calculating period of limitation applicable to such suits or proceedings such period shall not be counted : provided that nothing in, this clause shall apply to any proceedings under Sec. 48 (E) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (Act 8 of 1885) and to the proceedings relating to the recording of the titles of Bataidars.

(c) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration or adjudicati