- (1.)DURING the Pendency of the suit, the State Government had issued notification under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), on 24.7.1978, which covered part of the suit properties. The defendants thereafter filed an application before the trial court on 22.8.1979, under Section 4A of the Act, stating therein that the suit had abated in view of the aforesaid notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. By order dated 28.2.1981, the trial court had held that the suit had abated with respect to part of the suit properties, but had not abated with respect to Plot Nos. 82, 247, 461 and 265. The suit with respect to those plots of land was adjudicated and the judgment is impugned herein. During the pendency of the present appeal, the State Government issued notification under Section 4A of the Act, whereby the aforesaid notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was cancelled. In that view of the matter, the respondent has filed the present interlocutory application praying that the suit with respect to the lands which had abated should be revived and the requisite findings in terms of provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure be called for.
(2.)WHILE pressing this application, learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the scheme of the Act, and submits that this application is fit to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has countered the submission by submitting that the trial court 's refusal to adjudicate the balance of the suit is not covered by the expression ''omitted" occurring in Order 41, Rule 25, CPC. He next submits that in view of the provisions of Section 26A of the Act, there is no question of revival of the balance portion of the suit. In his submission, a suit or an appeal revives only if there is the requisite notification in terms of Section 26A of the Act which is not the position here.

(3.)HAVING considered the rival contentions, I am of the view that this application is fit to be allowed. Sections 4 and 26A of the Act contemplate different kinds of situations for exercise of power thereunder. A notification under Section 26A can be issued only after the consolidation proceeding with respect to the area notified under Section 3 of the Act has been concluded and closed in terms of the cognate provisions of the Act. On the other hand, a notification under section 4A of the Act can be issued at any stage of the consolidation proceeding prior to completion of the consolidation proceeding, which is the situation in the present case. The provision contained in Section 4(c) of the Act is to the effect that the suit or proceeding shall abate once a notification has been issued under Section 3 of the Act. It, therefore, follows as a matter of corollary that once the notification under Section 3 of the Act is countermanded under Section 4A of the Act, the provisions of Section 4(c) cease to operate. In that view of the matter, the suit or appeal is automatically revived. This conclusion is all the more irresistible in view of the legal position that the suit is the basic remedy of the citizen with respect to civil disputes. I, therefore, reach the conclusion that in view of the requisite notification under Section 4A of the Act, the consolidation proceeding in the area in question came to an end and, therefore, the balance of the suit which could not be adjudicated by the trial court is automatically revived.