NITYA NAND OJHA Vs. RAMJI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 154 of 2015 and is aggrieved by order, dtd. 19/1/2018, passed in the suit, by which the objection raised by the defendant-petitioner regarding the abatement of the suit, in view of Sec. 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short, "1956 Act'), has been rejected by learned Sub Judge-VII, Buxar.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit has been filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for partition as well as for setting aside the compromise decree. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the Special Bench decision of this Court, in the case of Most. Prabhawati Kumari v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 430, and submits that if the consolidation proceeding in the locality is still going on and the final notification has not been issued under Sec. 26-A of the 1956 Act, as such, in view of the law laid down by the Special Bench of this Court, in the case of Most. Prabhawati Kumari (supra), the suit has to abate. The learned Trial Court has committed material irregularity in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for abatement.