Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This application has been filed by defendants 3 and 4 and it is directed against the order dated the 16th August 1960, by which the learned Subordinate Judge has refused to stay the hearing of the suit under the following circumstances. A title suit is pending before the learned Subordinate Judge, numbered as Title Suit No. 25 of 1957. There is no dispute between the parties that during the pendency of this title suit, proceedings are pending under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Bihar Act XXII of 1956), which includes the properties in dispute also. Therefore, on the 2nd of August, 1960, the petitioners filed an application before the learned trial Judge, praying that the suit be stayed until the proceeding of consolidation of holdings was disposed of. Having heard the parties, the learned Judge has rejected this petition, on the ground that Sec. 4 of the Act does not bar this legal proceeding, in view of the proviso to that section. It has been held that Sec. 4 applied to a case where possession of land involved in the litigation is to be transferred from one person to another, and that in a partition suit, there will be no transfer of possession as such. Thus, defendants 3 and 4 have come up to this Court. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a very narrow interpretation has been put upon the proviso to Sec. 4 of the Act, and if a partition suit is not stayed, the purpose of the Act will be nullified with respect to the lands involved in the litigation. Secondly, it is urged that, upon the contentions raised by the parties in this litigation, actual transfer of possession is bound to take place, if the plaintiffs suit succeeds, This application is opposed by opposite party No. 4, Srimati Kapurdai Kuer, a defendant in the suit It is contended that a suit for partition cannot be stayed under Sec. 4 of the Act, in view of the proviso to that section. Reliance is placed on the interpretation of Sec. 4, in the case of Mt. Bibi Rabeya Khatoon V/s. Rambhsrosa Singh, 1963 BUR 190. Reliance is placed on the interpretation of Sec. 4, in the case of Mt. Bibi Rabeya Khatoon V/s. Rambhsrosa Singh, 1963 BUR 190. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has also relied upon the case of Jatru Pahan V/s. Mahatma Ambikajit Prasad, (S) AIR 1957 Pat 570 , for his contention that a partition does net amount to a transfer. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, and having considered the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party, it appears to me that a case has been made out by the petitioners, for stay of the suit until the scheme of consolidation comes into operation under Sec.14 of the Act. The decision reported in 1963 BLJR 190 is clearly distinguishable in that case, the suit was for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. It was held that such a suit did not involve transfer of land from one person to another within the meaning of Sec. 4 of Act XXII of 1956. I will indicate presently that the words used in the proviso to Sec. 4 must include a case of partition, in view of other provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, the decision reported in (S) AIR 1957 Pat 570 cannot be of assistance in this case, where an interpretation of Act XXII of 1956 has arisen. The proviso to Section 4 of the Act reads thus:- - "Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any proceeding under Chapters XI and XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898) or to any suit or proceeding unless such suit or proceeding involves transfer of land from one person to another." The expression "involves transfer of land" ought not to tie so interpreted, in my opinion, as to exclude a partition of the land. This would be clear if Section 5 of the Act is noticed. Sec. 5 of the Act reads thus:- - "5. This would be clear if Section 5 of the Act is noticed. Sec. 5 of the Act reads thus:- - "5. Land not to be transferred without sanction-- During the period commencing from the date of the publication of the notification under Sec.3 to the date when the scheme of consolidation comes into operation in any notified area, no person shall transfer or partition any land in such area except with the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer and, if the sanction is granted, the transfer or partition, as the case may be, shall be subject to the rights and liabilities attached to the land under the scheme of consolidation in respect of such area." The bar mentioned in the first few words is with respect to transfer without sanction, but the section itself says that when the scheme of consolidation comes into operation in any notified area, no person shall transfer or partition any land in such area except with the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer. It is, there fore, clear that the expression "transfer" is inclusive of the expression "partition". In this context Sec. 6 of the Act may also be noticed. It states that a person intending to transfer or partition any land shall make an application for sanction under Sec. 5; but the proviso to Sub-section (3) says that sanction shall not be granted for the transfer of any land to any person, if after such transfer the total area of the land held by him will exceed the maximum area that may be held by such person under any law for the time being in force in the notified area. Here also the section starts by referring to an application for sanction to transfer or partition, and it ends with the expression "transfer" only without using the expression partition. Therefore, It appears to me that the expression "transfer" used in Sections 4, 5 and 6 must also include the notion of partition. It may be noted that the proviso to Sec. 4 uses a very wide expression, in connection with the words "transfer of land". It is stated in the proviso that the section shall not apply to any suit unless such suit "involves transfer of land". If this expression involving transfer of land does not include a notion of partition, then anomalies would occur. It is stated in the proviso that the section shall not apply to any suit unless such suit "involves transfer of land". If this expression involving transfer of land does not include a notion of partition, then anomalies would occur. By virtue of Sec. 5 of the Act, a person cannot transfer any land without previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer. He cannot partition any land without the previous sanction of the officer. If he institutes a suit for a transfer of land, the suit will be barren" under the proviso to Sec. 4. But if "partition" is eliminated from the proviso, then a person can institute a suit for partition, whereas he cannot partition himself without the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that the proviso to Sec. 4 of the Act, where it has used an all-embracing expression "involves transfer of land", ought to be interpreted as including partition of land, to which Sec.3 of the Act can, be made applicable. 4 For the reasons given above, it appears to me that the trial court must now stay the hearing of the suit, until the scheme of consolidation comes into operation under Sec.14 of the Act The application must, therefore, succeed, and it is allowed. The order dated the 16th August 1960 is set aside, with the direction given above. Under the circumstances, the parties must bear their own costs of this Court.