PARAMANAND OJHA Vs. OM PRAKASH AND 08 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute being raised in the present petition is with regard to the orders passed by the civil court dated 10.01.2018 and 06.07.2018 in Original Suit number 347 of 1993 (Radha Krishun Pandey Vs. Ramawati & others), whereby the trial court and the revisional court both had opined that the preliminary issue Nos. 4 and 5, framed by the trial court vide order dated 03.12.2003, are to be decided first i.e. before entering into the merits of the suit. The issue No.4 pertains to valuation of the suit and the court fees and issue no. 5 is that whether the suit is barred by section 4-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act' 1953 (herein after referred as Act' 1953).

(2.) With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the issue no. 5 maybe re-framed that as to whether the suit will abate under section 5(2)(a) of the Act' 1953 in view of the notification issued under section 4(1)(a) of the Act' 1953.

(3.) The facts in brief relevant for the controversy in hands are that the original suit No. 347 of 1993 was filed by Radha Kishun Pandey on 22.07.1993. During the pendency of the said suit, notification under section 4(1)(a) of the Act' 1953 was issued. As the village underwent consolidation operations and the land in question, admittedly, lies within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities, vide order dated 3.12.2003, the trial court framed an issue as to whether the suit would stand abated by virtue of the said fact.