T.S. MISRA, J. :- This is an application for abatement of the appeal and the suit which has given rise to the appeal. The material facts for the purposes of this application may be briefly stated. The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed dated 15th June, 1964, executed by him and Ali Kabir in favour of the defendant in respect of the property detailed at the foot of the plaint so far as it pertained to his share therein. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but in appeal, it watt decreed and the sale-deed in question was cancelled to the extent of the plaintiffs, share in the property in dispute. The decision of the appellate court below was given on 18th May, 1972. Against that decision, the defendant filed a second appeal in this Court on 11th July 1972 However, before the second appeal was filed a notification under Section 4 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act was published on 21st May, 1972, in respect of the village where the land in dispute is situated. The appellant, therefore, filed an application that the suit and the appeal be ordered to have abated under Section 5 of the said Act. The plaintiff-respondent in his counter-affidavit has admitted the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the said Act under which the village where the land in question is situated, has been brought under the consolidation operations. It was. however, urged on behalf of the respondent that as the said notification had been issued before the filing of the second appeal this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the appeal would, therefore, not be deemed to be pending. Hence no order for abatement can be passed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act inasmuch as an order for abatement can be passed only when a suit, appeal or revision is pending in a competent court. This contention is sought to be based on the provisions of Sections 49 and 5 of the said Act.

2. To appreciate the argument, I may begin by quoting Section 49 of the said Act. It is as follows :-

"49. Bar to Civil Court Jurisdiction - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of right's of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued under Sub-Section (2) of Section 4, or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have

been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act."

Section 49 provides that the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a notification has been issued under Section 4 shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and debars a Civil or Revenue Court to entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act. In other words, the provisions of this section require that no suit or proceeding shall be entertained by a Civil or a Revenue Court with respect to rights in a land which is situated in a village which hat been brought under consolidation operations, for which a proceeding could or ought to have, been taken under the said Act. A question thus arisen what a the meaning of the word 'entertained' in this context. Does it mean that no appeal shall be 'received' or 'filed' or does it mean that no appeal shall be admitted or heard and disposed of ?

3. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the word 'entertained' connotes that no appeal shall be 'received' or 'filed'. In my view this would not be a correct interpretation of that word. If the legis