NRUSHINGHA CHARAN PADHI Vs. BASUDEB PADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents, in the appeal herein, instituted a suit for partition in respect of the property in dispute. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court before the High court. While the appeal was pending before the High court, a notification under Section 3 (1 of the orissa Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1972 (the Act) was published thereby indicating the commencement of consolidation proceedings under the Act. The question before the High court was whether the suit, out of which the appeal before the High court had arisen, stood abated in terms of Section 4 (4 of the Act. The High court answered the question in the negativeand in favour of the respondents. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High court.

(2.) The High court considered the question of abatement on the interpretation of Section 4 (4 of the Act and came to the conclusion that the abatement was not automatic. The High court further held that since the respondents had lost the opportunity of filing objections before the consolidation authorities in terms of Section 14 of the Act, it would be in the interest of justice to permit the suit to continue. The High court rejected the contention that the suit abated on the following reasoning:

(3.) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High court. We are of the view that the High court fell into patent error in interpreting the provisions of Section 4 (4 of the Act. Section 5 (2 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, is in pari materia with Section 4 (4 of the Act. Both the S. are couched in similar words. This court in Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh while considering the scope of Section 5 (2 of the U. P. Act held as under: