Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) A learned single Judge has referred to a Division Bench the question whether the suit for an injunction and possession in respect of grove land will abate under Section 5 of the U P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) THE Plaintiff filed a suit on the allegation that he was Bhumidhar of plot No. 79, which was a grove. In a portion thereof the Defendant had made forcible encroachment. The relief claimed was for an injunction and possession over the encroached site. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court. This plea was given up. The trial court upheld the Plaintiff's claim on merits and decreed the suit.
(3.) ON appeal the plea that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction was pressed. It was accepted by the appellate court. It allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to return the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff came to this Court in appeal. During its pendency a notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued in relation to the village where the plot in dispute was situate. The Respondents moved an application that the suit as well as the present appeal be declared to have abated under Section 5 of that Act.;