S.K.Katriar, J.

1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by defendant no. 1 and is directed against the order dated 3.6.2008, passed by the learned Additional Munsif-ll, Kaimur at Bhabua, in Title Suit No. 62 of 1995 (Shubhraji Devi V/s. Jagnarayan Singh), whereby it has been held that the suit does not abate in terms of Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner herein is defendant no. 1 before the learned trial court, opposite party nos. 1 to 5 herein are the plaintiffs, and opposite party no. 6 (Sheopujan Singh since deceased), was defendant no. 2. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.

2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the civil revision application may be indicated. According to the plaint, the two defendants are full brothers. Defendant no. 2 was the husband of plaintiff no. 1, and was given to intoxication. Under the evil influence of intoxication, defendant no. 2 executed the registered deed of gift in favour of defendant no. 1, to the exclusion of the plaintiffs who are his wife and daughters. The suit has, therefore, been instituted, inter alia, for the declaration that the deed of gift is illegal, and void ab initio.

3. During pendency of the suit, defendant no. 1 filed an application on 12.8.2008 (Annexure-2), stating therein that the same has abated in terms of Section 4(c) of the Act. The application has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that, in view of the nature of reliefs sought for in the plaint, jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded. Hence this application at the instance of defendant no. 1. As stated hereinabove, the defendant no. 2 died during the pendency of the present proceedings and has been expunged.

4. The matter was on the first occasion laid before a learned Single Judge on 5.8.2008, and was admitted on the following grounds:

"...In view of the conflict in the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh V/s. Mithilesh Kumar Singh reported in 2005(4) PLJR 274 and the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Bhajan Mahto V/s. Bam Mahto & Anr. reported in 2008(1) BBCJ 421, it would be desirable that the controversy is resolved by a Division Bench. Accordingly, this civil revision application will be heard..."

This is how the matter comes up before us, inter alia to resolve the controversy whether or not decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh V/s. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, 2005(4) PLJR 274, is in conflict with that of Ram Bhajan Mahto V/s. Bam Mahto and Anr., 2008(1) BBCJ 421 [: 2007(4) PLJR 649].

5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties in their elaborate submissions before us had addressed us on the questions referred by the learned Single Judge, as well as on the merits of the suit. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the whole matter to save further time and harassment to the parties, and also in view of the position that no intra-court appeal shall lie against the order of a learned Single Judge. It appears that the State Government had issued notification in terms of Section 3 of the Act with the object to ensure consolidation operation in the area where the lands in question are situated. This was followed by a notification under Section 4(a) of th.e Act, whereby the notification under Section 3 of the Act was cancelled. The matter travelled to the Supreme Court at the instance of the State Government and the same was dismissed on 8.7.2003, passed in S.L.P. No. 9326 of 2003. Consequently, the State Government issued the notification which was published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary dated 15.3.2004 (Annexure-1), whereby the notification under Section 4(a) of the Act was withdrawn and, consequently, the notifi