ORDER V.G. Oak, J. - This is a first appeal by Defendants from a decree passed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Gyanpur. It appears that the property in dispute is situate in a village in district Varanasi and this village has been brought under consolidation operations. The learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the appeal has abated u/s 5 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). But they are not agreed as to whether the suit itself has abated. According to Mr. K.N. Seth appearing for the Defendants-Appellants, the suit also has abated. According to Mr. A.P. Pande appearing for the Plaintiffs-Respondents, although the first appeal has abated, the suit has not abated. 2. Mr. A.P. Pande relies upon Smt. Ram Kuar v. Jangi 1964 RD 310 . It was held in that case that an execution proceeding is a proceeding which does not originate in itself but follows a decree passed in a suit and consequently is different from a suit. There is nothing in the Act to show that the word "suit" in Section 5 of the Act has been used in a sense so as to include execution proceedings. Hence execution of decrees was not to be stayed u/s 5. 3. In the present case I am not concerned with the question of stay of execution proceedings. So, the decision in Ram Kuar's case is not of much assistance in deciding the question whether the suit abates or not. 4. The point has to be decided on the language of Section 5 of the Act. 3. In the present case I am not concerned with the question of stay of execution proceedings. So, the decision in Ram Kuar's case is not of much assistance in deciding the question whether the suit abates or not. 4. The point has to be decided on the language of Section 5 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 states: Upon the said publication of the notification Under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely: (a) every proceedings for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whome such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated...." It will be seen that Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act provides for abatement of suits. It is made clear in Clause (a) that abatement will take place whether a case is pending before a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision. For certain purposes, an appeal is treated as a continuation of a suit. It is, therefore, possible to say that a suit was pending before this Court. 5. If Mr. A.P. Pande's contention is accepted, it would mean that, although the appeal has abated, the suit did not abate. That would mean that the decree passed by the lower Court against the Defendants-Appellants will subsist. It would mean that, although a decree has been passed against the Defendants, they cannot possibly satisfy the higher Court that that decree is erroneous. That does not appear to be the intention of the Legislature in inserting Sub-section (2) in Section 5 of the Act. It is made clear in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) that the abatement is without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to press their claims before the appropriate consolidation authorities. The intention appears to be to restore the position, which obtained before the institution of the entire proceeding. It is made clear in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) that the abatement is without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to press their claims before the appropriate consolidation authorities. The intention appears to be to restore the position, which obtained before the institution of the entire proceeding. If the suit abates, it would not mean any special hardship to the Plaintiffs. It may be that the court-fee paid on the plaint would be wasted. But there would be no effect on the merits of the claim of the Plaintiffs. In view of these considerations, I have come to the conclusion that the object of the Legislature was that the entire proceeding or suit should abate. 6. I, therefore, direct that the entire suit and the first appeal have abated. Parties shall bear their own casts.