IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.779 of 2009 BISHWANATH YADAV & ORS Versus RAMANAND DUBEY@LAL BABU DUBEY & ORS ----------- 2/ 20.05.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20th March, 2009 passed by the learned Sub Judge IV, Sasaram in Title Suit No. 476 of 2004, by which the court below after hearing the parties on the petition filed by the defendant Ist party to the above noted suit, decided that the suit be abated on account of issuance of notice under section 4 (C ) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order in question appears properly passed as regards abatement inasmuch as the parties were heard and that is the law laid down by this Court in its decision reported in 1993 BLJR 258. The very law indicates that party had a right to file an amendment petition so as to amending his plaint in order to bring the suit out of the mischief of the provision of section 4 ( C ) of the Act. The contention is that the petitioners had filed an amendment petition on 20.7.2006, i.e., almost two years nine months prior to the passing of the impugned order. It was desirable that before passing an order on the petition filed by the defendant Ist set so as to abate the suit in the light of the provision of the Act, the court below ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners for pressing their amendment petition and thereafter, the court ought to have - 2 - passed an order either allowing the amendment or rejecting it. That was a legitimate petition which must have been taken up for hearing before passing the order impugned herein. I hereby set aside the order in question and direct that the amendment petition filed by either of the parties or any of the parties, if it is available on record of the above noted title suit, so as to creating a new jurisdiction excluding the jurisdiction of the consolidation officers, be taken up for hearing and an order be passed on that and then only, the court should proceed with the petition dated 3.6.2006 filed by the defendant Ist set. Revision petition is allowed in the above light. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)