IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.213 of 2000 DAMODAR MISHRA & ORS Versus RAM EKBAL RAI & ORS ----------- 13 7.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the parties. The defendants/petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 22.1.2000 whereby and whereunder the application filed by them seeking abatement of the suit on the ground of Section 4(i)(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the findings recorded in the impugned order submits that the view taken by the Court amounts to a patent jurisdictional error inasmuch there can be no hard line that if in any suit, a relief of declaration of title is sought, the same would not be barred by provision of Section 4(i)(c) of the Consolidation Act. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the second part of the order where the Court below seems to be more concerned with the shape of things in which the consolidation proceedings have been affected and allegedly “paralyzed”. Counsel for the other side however submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and he in this context has assailed the application filed by the petitioners which was filed by them without any affidavit. 2 This Court after considering the aforementioned submissions of both the parties is of the view that once an application was filed by the petitioners before the Court below, it was required to consider the relief as well as the facts pleaded in the plaint to come to a finding as to whether the suit was barred or not. The approach of the Court below by only looking into the prayer portion of the plaint cannot be approved. That apart, no reasons is forthcoming in the impugned order for rejecting such prayer of the petitioners. The impression of the Court below about the poor functioning of the consolidation authorities or of the scheme cannot be a ground for rejection of prayer for abatement of suit as it is the mandate of law that such suit have to abate during the continuation of the consolidation proceedings. Be that as it may, the impugned order, being a cryptic order containing no reason much less any cogent reason for rejecting the prayer of the petitioners, cannot be sustained and accordingly this civil revision application is allowed and the Court below is directed to reconsider the prayer of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)