1. The present revision application is directed against the order passed by learned Sub-Judge VII, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No. 228 of 2004 whereby the Court has held that the suit stands abated in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (In short "The Act"). The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court. The opposite parties were defendants who raised the objection and succeeded. Heard both the parties.

2. On behalf of petitioner, it is stated that in view of the liberty granted to him by the order of the Division Bench disposing of his Letters Patent Appeal, his subsequent suit was maintainable and the learned trial Court erred in ordering the abatement of the suit, rather it acted contrary to and in defiance of the order passed in the petitioners Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, the order impugned has to be set aside. The title suit in question is a partition suit simpliciter which has been ordered to have abated.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed a revision application as contemplated under Sec. 35 of the Act challenging the orders of the consolidation authorities. The said revision application was dismissed on 15.3.1992. That being the final forum under the Act for redressal of grievances, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court being CWJC No. 5331 of 2000. The writ application was dismissed in limine noticing that the challenge was to an order passed more than six years back without any explanation for the delay. Against the said order, a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 1078 of 2003 was preferred by the petitioner. The said appeal was also dismissed but while dismissing, this Court held as under:

"However, dismissal of the writ application will not stand in the way of the appellant to agitate the matter before the Civil Court in accordance with law in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Seikh Haidar Zan Vs. Md. Yusuf Ansari & Anr., reported in 2000(2) PLJR 338."

4. The petitioner asserts that it is pursuant to the aforesaid observation that he filed the present Title Suit being Title Suit No. 228 of 2004 which, as stated above, on objection of the defendant-opposite party, by order dated 18.5.2005 ordered to abate and await closure of consolidation proceedings. This is the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court, namely, Seikh Haidar Zan Vs. Md. Yusuf Ansari and Ann, 2000(2) PLJR 338 for the proposition that the entry pursuant to notification under Sec. 16 of the Act for correction of entries in the revisional survey is amenable to challenge in Civil Court and, as such, notification under Sec. 16 of the Act having been issued, the suit was maintainable and would abate. I regret the submission is devoid of merit. In order to appreciate the scheme of the Act, I may notice that Sec. 3 of the Act provides for a preliminary notification by which the intention of the Government to initiate proceedings for consolidation is made in respect of any area. Sec. 4 is the effect of notification under Sec. 3(1) of the Act. Substantive part of Sec. 4 is quoted here for ready reference:

4. Effect of notification under sec. 3(1) of the Act.-Upon the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Sec. 3 in the official gazette the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified in the notification till the close of the consolidation operation, ensure in the area to which the notification relates, namely-(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 and proceedings such period shall not be counted: (c) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of right