Binod Kumar Roy, J.

In this civil revision application, by defendant no. 1, the only question involved is as to whether a suit for perm anent injunction would also abate in view of section 4 (c) or the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), or whether the same would be not maintainable in view of section 4 (b) of the aforesaid Act.

2. The portrayal of the relevant facts are short and simple. From the plaint, it is clear that the suit in question has been filed by the plaintiffs opposite parties 1 to 7 for granting at decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in any manner with their possession over the properties described in Schedule II of the plaint and also for granting costs.

3. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the court below has illegally rejected the petitioner's petition dated 209.1985, filed under sections 4 (b) and 4 (C) of the Act by completely misconceiving the legal position and incorrectly placing reliance on the decisions of the Orissa High Court reported in A.I.R. 1982 Orissa 48 and A.I.R 1985 Orissa 202 (Duruju Mallik vs.