IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.230 of 2009 Ramswarath Thakur & Ors Versus Shiva Shankar Thakur ----------- 4 28-9-2011 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, the learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the opposite party and has made his submissions. It has been submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the suit for partition has already been decreed and thereafter the final decree proceeding was going on for preparation of the final decree and as such the provisions of section 4(b) and 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, are not attracted. On this basis the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. From the impugned order also, as it appears, final decree proceeding is going on between the parties, and in view of the decision in Jagdish Prasad Vs. Satya Narain Singh, reported in A.I.R. 1982 Patna 37, the provisions of sections 4(b) and 4(c) of the above said Act are not applicable. As such, there is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. ( V. Nath, J.) 2 roy