AWADH RAI Vs. MEWALAL RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave was granted confined to one question, namely, as to whether on the issuance of notification under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Preventive of Fragmentation Act, 1956, pending suits are to abate. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Misra appearing for the appellant, relying upon the ratio of the decision in Munshi Muqbool Raw v. Hasan Raza contends in view of the notification made under S. 3 of the Bihar Act, the suit pending in the civil court had to abate and nothing survived to be continued up to the stage of second appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents maintains that the provision which this court construed in Munshi Muqbool case was of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act and S. 5 (2 is very different from the provision contained in S. 4 of the Bihar Act. In the U. P. Act the provision is that the suit abates once the notification contemplated under that Act is issued while S. 4 (1 (c) of the Bihar Act provides :

(2.) The provision apparently seems to be very different but Mr. Misra contends that the effect is the same. We think it appropriate that the matter should go back to the High court where the question as to whether under S. 4 (c) there is automatic abatement of the suit should be considered. Costs shall abide the event. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.