- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20- 7- 2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Ballia whereby he allowed the revision filed by the plaintiff- respondent and set aside the order dated 1-2-1995 passed by the trial Court abating the suit under Section 5 (2) of the U. P Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).
(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed original suit No. 31 of 1993 seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 3-9-1989 alleged to have been executed in favour of the petitioners by respondent No. 3 and an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in the possession over the land in dispute. On being served with summons, the defendants-petitioners entered appearance in the said suit and moved an application under Section 5 (2) of the Act for abatement of the suit on the ground that the village has been notified for consolidation operation. THE trial Court vide order dated 1-2-1995 abated the suit. THE contesting respondents filed revision which was allowed by respondent No. 1 and the order of the trial Court was set aside. I have heard Sri S. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. There is no dispute between the parties that notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act has been issued with regard to the area where the land in dispute is situated.
(3.) THE question which arises for consideration is whether the suit where relief for cancellation of sale deed of an agricultural land has been claimed is liable to be abated in view of the provision of Section 5 of the Act. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of plaint allegation the sale deed of which cancellation was sought was a void document and hence the suit was liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. The revisional Court had committed a gross illegality in holding otherwise and setting aside the order of the trial Court.;