Sarwar Ali, A.C.J. :

This is one of those cages which high lights the fact that inexpert drafting and failure to give proper thought and attention to the language of an enactment, by the draftsman, leads to complication and litigation. These could have been avoided if an important legislation like the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956 had been given that care and consideration which a law of far reaching consequence demands. It is my experience with such inept drafting and failure to fully appreciate the consequences there of, that has led me to advocate outside the Court, the establishment of a law commission in the State, having a statutory status. Recently in the Full Bench Decision of this Court in Ramkrit Singh Vs. State of Bihar we have emphasised the desirability of establishment of such a commission. The present case not only strengthens me in this view but induces me to highlight again this aspect in the judgment, realising fully that the Courts should be slow to put forth suggestions, unless in Interest of justice and proper administration of law requires them to do so. In my view, the presence of both these elements in the instant case provide justification for reiterating what have been stated by me in paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Full Bench a view which was concurred to by my learned collegues.

2. With these introductory remarks, I must now, compactly, state the facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Revision application. A Title suit being Title suit No. 103/1962 was tiled by the plaintiffs opposite party first set for declaration of title and recovery of possession over about 3.8 acres of land. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs filed a First Appeal in this Court being First Appeal No. 276 of 1965. The appeal was allowed and the suit decreed on 29.1.1977. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an execution case being Execution Case No.4 of 1977. In the said execution case an objection under sections 47 and l51 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. In the objection it was, inter alia, stated that since the consolidation operations were going on in the village in which the suit land was situate both at the time of pendency of the suit and appeal, as also the tiling of the execution petition, the execution case could not be entertained. This objection has been overruled. Hence this Civil Revision application.

3. So far as the suit and the appeal are concerned, it is clear that it is not open to the executing court to determine whether the suit or appeal had abated or not. Section 4(1)(c) is quite clear that the abatement takes place only after an order is passed in this behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending. Thus so far as the suit or appeal is concerned, an order of abatement could only be passed by the trial .court or the High Court in the first appeal. The executing court has no power to hold that the suit or appeal had abated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, took a slightly different stand in this court and contended that the execution proceeding could not be entertained in view of section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Before considering the arguments it would be appropriate to read section 4(1)(b) and (c) so tar as they are relevant.

"Effect of notification under section 3(1) of the Act: Upon the publication of the notification under sub section (1) of section 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, ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely;

xx xx xx

(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 :

xx xx xx

(c) every proceeding