Modi, J - (1.) THIS is a defendants' second appeal in a suit for pre-emption. It is admitted that the parties are Biswedars who lived at all material times in village Kaliahora, Tehsil Behrore, District Alwar. It is unnecessary to narrate the facts leading up to this appeal beyond saying that the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption Was decreed on certain terms by a judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Alwar in appeal. A preliminary objection has-been raised on behalf of the respondent that this appeal cannot be proceeded with and must be abated by virtue of the provisions of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959, (Act No. 8 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959 ). THIS Act was enacted, as its preamble says, to provide for the abolition of and the acquisition of the right, title and interest in, estates held by Zamindars and Biswedars in the State of Rajasthan and for other matters connected therewith, and came into force on the 1st November, 1959. THIS objection having been raised on the 6th January, 1960, opportunity was allowed to learned counsel for the appellants to meet it, and this is how the case has come up for hearing today.
(2.) THE relevant portion of sec. 5 of the Act of 1959 reads as follows : - "5. Consequences of abolition : - (1) After the issue of a notification under sub-sec. (l) of sec. 3 no right shall be acquired in or over any land in an estate affected thereby except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the State Government and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land by or on behalf of the holder of such estate otherwise than in accordance with rules made by the State Government in this behalf. (2) And form the date of vesting of any Zamindari or Biswedari estate in the State Government, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other document or in any law for the time being in force but save as otherwise provided in this Act - (a) Such estate shall stand transferred to, and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances ; (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) subject to any rules made in this behalf, all suits and proceedings relating to such estate pending in any court, civil or revenue, at the date of vesting, and all proceedings consequent upon any decree or order passed in any such suit or proceeding before such date, shall be stayed ; (m ). . . . . . . . . " Then rule 5 of the Rules made under sec. 5 of the Act of 1959 reads as follows : "5. Abatement of suit or proceeding by court or authority - Every suit or proceeding, whether pending in the court of first instance or in appeal or on revision, stayed under clause (l) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 of the Act shall be abated by the court or the authority before which it may be pending after giving notice to the parties and giving them an opportunity of being heard. " Before proceeding further, I consider it necessary to point out that there seems to have crept in a printing error in sec. 5 of the Act where in second line of the section the expression 'under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3" occurs. There is no sub-section to sec. 3 at all, and the reference really is to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 4. It is the last-mentioned section which provides for a vesting order. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 4 reads as follows : - "as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint a date for the abolition and acquisition of Zamindari and Biswedari estates, or any class of such estates, in the State, or in any area thereof specified in the notification, and for their vesting in the State Government. '' The word 'estate' has been defined by clause (2) of sec. 2 and means land, or right, title or interest in land, held by a Biswedar or a Zamindar. The combined force of these provisions is that as soon as the vesting order has been made by the Government with respect to an estate or the part of an estate as defined by the Government with respect to an estate or the part of as estate as defined by the Act, no right to such an estate can thereafter be acquired by any person falling within the meaning of the Act except by the various modes mentioned in sec. 5 (1 ). As already stated above the Act of 1959 came into force on the 1st November, 1959, vide notification No. F. 1 (152) Rev. A/59 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated the 2lst October, 1959. By another notification of the same date (No. F. l (l52)Rev. A/59), which is published in the same issue of "the Gazette, it was further notified that the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Rules, 1959, would come into force simultaneously when the Act came into force. By a further notification No. F. l (152) Rev. A/59 dated the 3rd November, 1959, published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra of the same date, the following notification was issued : - "in exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 (Rajasthan Act No. 8 of 1959), the State Government hereby appoints the 15th day of November, 1959, as the date for the abolition and requisition of all settled Zamindari and Biswedari estates throughout Rajasthan and for the vesting of all such estates in the State Government. " It is conceded before me that the estate with which we are concerned in the present case is a settled one. That being so, this estate by virtue of the notification last-mentioned was vested in the State Government on the 15th November, 1959. The inevitable consequence of this must be that subject to the rules made in this hehalf,all suits and proceedings relating to any such estate pending in any court, civil or revenue, at the date of vesting and all proceedings consequent upon any decree or order passed in any such suit or proceeding before such date must be stayed. . ( See. clause (1) of sec. 5 (2) ). The rule which then is attracted into application is rule 5 which has already been cited above and need not be repeated. What this rule in plain language seems to provide is that every suit or proceeding which may be pending anywhere in a court of law at the date of the vesting of such estate in the Government must be abated by the court or the authority before which it was pending. It further provides that before this is done, a notice must be given to the parties concerned and they should be allowed an opportunity of being heard. This brings me to the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that what abates is the appeal and not the suit and the decree therein that has preceded it and therefore the decree passed by the court below would still remain in tact and effectual. On giving my careful and anxious consideration to this question, I have come to the conclusion that this contention has no force and cannot be sustained on the plain language of the statute and the rules made thereunder. What this Court is concerned to do is to interpret the law as it stands and not as it might have been. The words suit (or proceeding) and appeal or revision have not been used in alternation in the rule : but what, on the other hand, it says is that every suit or proceeding whether pending in the court of first instance or in appeal or on revision stayed under clause (1) of sub-sec. (2) of section 5 of the Act shall be abated. ' What therefore, abates is not merely the appeal or the revision in a suit or proceeding when the same may have been pending and stayed, but the entire suit or proceeding itself at whatever stage it may be, that is, whether it may be pending in the court of first instance or it may be at the stage of an appeal or a revision. The intention of the Legislature, therefore, manifestly is that the entire suit or proceeding must be abated and not merely the appeal or the revision which may be pending at the relevent time, that is, at the time of the vesting of the estate in the Government, and the parties are relegated to the original position which they occupied at the institution of the suit or the proceeding as the case may be. I have no doubt that if the Legislature meant otherwise, there was nothing to prevent it from saying so clearly, and this Court can only interpret what it has said. I should also like to add that I can see no justification for putting any other meaning on the rule in view of its plain language, the more so as it is perfectly intelligible and I see no ambiguity or obscurity about it. I, therefore hold that it is the suit which should be held to have abated and not merely the appeal which is at present pending, on a proper interpretation of R. 5 of the Rules. It must inevitably follow from this that the judgments and decrees of the courts below are of no effect whatsoever. It is not for this Court to advise as to what steps, if any, the plaintiffs should take in order to have their rights in this litigation vindicated, and it would be for them to take appropriate proceedings in the light of the provisions of the Act.
(3.) THE result, therefore, is that this appeal 'has to be stayed under clause (1) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 of the Act of 1959, and having so done, this Court cannot but abate it, under R. 3 of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Rules, 1959. Having regard to the circumstance that this entire litigation has abated by virtue of a supervening Act of Legislature, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. .;