IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.405 of 2009 1. Ishwar Dayal Singh, son of late Harihar Singh 2. Ram Dayal Singh, son of late Harihar Singh 3. Sidh Nath Singh, son of late Harihar Singh, all resident of Purwan Tola, P.S. Brahmpur, District-Buxar ---- Petitioners --- Defendants. Versus 1. Srimati Kamala Gupta, wife of late Ganpat Prasad 2. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, son of late Ganpat Prasad 3. Dinesh Kumar, son of late Ganpat Prasad 4. Umesh Kumar, son of late Ganpat Prasad, all residents of Village Nimej, P.S. Brahmpur, District-Buxar at present residing at C27/249-24 Bibeka Nand Colony Maldahia, Vanarashi (U.P.) 5. Onkar Nath Gupta, son of late Bishwanath Prasad, resident of Village Nimej, P.S. Brahmpur, District- Buxar at present residing at D 46/21 D Laksha Vanarsh ---- Plaintiff ---- Opposite Party. 6. Abinash Chandra Gupta, son of late Baij Nath Sah 7. Arun Kumar Gupta, son of late Anant Pd. Sah, at + P.O. Nimej, P.S. Brahmpur, District-Buxar --2nd Set Defendant ---- Opposite party. 8. Awadh Bihari Prasad, son of late Baij Nath Prasad 9. Arbind Kumar Gupta, son of late Baijnath Prasad at + P.O. Nimej, P.S. Brahmapur, District- Buxar ---- Defendant ---- Opposite Party. 10. Shiv Dayal Singh, son of late Harihar Singh, resident of Village-Purwan Tola, P.S. Brahmpur, P.O. Brahmpur, District-Buxar ---- Defendant ---- Opposite party. ---------------------------------- 3. 22.11.2011 Heard Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary for the petitioners. The defendants are the petitioners in this civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and are aggrieved by order dated 22.1.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) II, Buxar, in Title Suit No.245 of 2000, whereby the 2 application of the defendants has been rejected. The defendants had prayed in their application that the suit had abated under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the defendants (the petitioners) submits that the learned trial court had erred in concluding that the suit has not abated in view of cases of the parties. He relies on the judgment of the Division Bench in Ram Sewak Rai Vs. Dhaneshwar Thakur and others, 1983, P.L.J.R. 182. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. One of the important questions which seem to arise for adjudication in the suit is whether or not the sale deed was obtained fraudulently, an issue which can not be gone into by the authorities under the Act. In view of cases of the parties, he has rightly held that the suit shall not abate. We, therefore, agree with the impugned order. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)