JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal by Dahdeo Singh defendant, against the order of the Civil Judge of Ghazipur setting aside the order of abatement under Section 5 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed by the Munsif Saidpur at Ghazipur and at the same time remanding the suit for a fresh hearing after recording the evidence of the parties. The learned Civil Judge also held that the appeal preferred against the order of abatement was maintainable. 2. Even if no appeal lay against the order of abatement passed by the Munsif this Court can in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction consider suo motu the legality of the order of abatement passed by the Munsif and if it be found that the order is against the law and the learned Civil Judge had passed a correct order on merits, this Court can by dismissing the F.A.F.O. maintain the order of the Civil Judge. 3. The material facts of the case are that the present suit for the demolition of the unauthorised constructions on agricultural land and in the alternatively for possession was instituted in 1963 at a time consolidation proceedings were pending in the village. The notification under Section 52 of the Act was published in 1964. Sec. 5 was, however, amended in 1966 by deleting clause (b) and adding sub-sec. (2) to Sec. 5. Prior to the amendment of Section 5, the hearing of suits covered by this Sec. had to be stayed and on the publication of the notification under Section 52 such suits had to be decided in accordance with the decision of the consolidation authorities. In other words, the suits had to be finally decided by the court before whom such suits were pending, though on questions decided by the consolidation authorities their finding had to be accepted and made the basis of judgment. However, after the amendment of Section 5 in 1966 such suits stood abated. It was made clear in clause (b) of Section 5 (2) that the abatement of the suit shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the rights or interest before the consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. 4. It was made clear in clause (b) of Section 5 (2) that the abatement of the suit shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the rights or interest before the consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. 4. By virtue of Section 5 of the Act, as it then stood, the hearing of the suit had been stayed, but after the amendment of Section 5 the question arose whether the hearing of the suit could proceed or it had by virtue of amended Section 5 (2) stood abated. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that the suit stood abated. 5. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which came up for hearing before the Civil Judge of Ghazipur. He has held that amended Section 5 did not apply to the instant case and there was no abatement of the suit. 6. It is true that while amending Section 5, sub-sec. (2) has not been properly worded to make it clear that the amended provision applies only upto the stage of the publication of the notification under Sec. 52. However, if the sub-section is read as a whole no other inference can be drawn except that the sub-section is applicable only for the period sub-sec. (1) of Section 5 is in operation, i.e. the abatement clause applies only up to the publication of the notification under Sec. 52. 7. Sub-Sec. (1) of Section 5 makes it clear that the consequences detailed therein apply from the stage of the publication of the notification under Sec. 1(2) to the stage of the publication of the notification under Sec. 52. Consequently, after the publication of the notification under Section 52 the record of right are to be prepared and maintained by the revenue authorities and not by the consolidation authorities. However, sub-sec (2) of Section 5 omitted a reference to the publication of the notification under Section 52, it appears because once a suit had abated it abated forever. 8. After the abatement of the suit under clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of Section 5 the parties can agitate the disputes before the consolidation authorities, vide clause (b) of sec. 5 (2) . The parties can seek redress before the consolidation authorities only up to the publication of the notification under Sec. 52. 8. After the abatement of the suit under clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of Section 5 the parties can agitate the disputes before the consolidation authorities, vide clause (b) of sec. 5 (2) . The parties can seek redress before the consolidation authorities only up to the publication of the notification under Sec. 52. Thereafter the consolidation authorities are functus officio except for purposes detailed in Sec. 52. In other words, after the publication of the notification under Section 52, a party cannot avail of the benefits of clause (b) . Consequently, the application of clause (a) of Section 5 (2) can be restricted to the stage of the publication of the notification under Sec. 52. If a contrary view is taken it shall not be possible for any party to institute a suit before any court even after the publication of the notification under Sec. 52. The learned Advocate for the appellant conceded before me that to adopt the view that no suit can be instituted even after the publication of the notification under Section 52 shall be absurd and will deprive people of the vested right to seek remedy before the courts of law. 9. Once words can be added to sub-sec. (1) of Section 5 to rectify the drafting error, the same rule can be applied to cases where the notification under Section 52 had been published before the amendment of Section 5 of the Act. In the instant case, the plaintiffs had asked for demolition of unauthorised construction. Consequently, if amended Section 5 applies and suit abates, it shall be necessary for them to institute another suit for the demolition of the unauthorised constructions. It can be assumed that the intention of the legislature is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and on this ground also it can be held that Section 5 (2) as incorporated in 1966, does not apply to cases where a notification under Section 52 has already been published. 10. Clause (b) of Section 5 was deleted at the time sub-sec. (2) was incorporated therein. 10. Clause (b) of Section 5 was deleted at the time sub-sec. (2) was incorporated therein. The deletion of this clause cannot adversely affect any of the parties considering that on the application of the principles of res judicata and also under Section 49 of the Act it shall not be possible for any party to reagitate a question which had been decided by the consolidation authorities or which ought to have been taken or raised before such authorities. 11. To sum up, sub-sec. (2) of Section 5 of the Act did not apply to the instant case where the notification under Section 52 had been published prior to the amendment of Section 5 in 1966. The suit, therefore, did not abate, but, can be decided by the courts of law after accepting the finding direct or implied, of the consolidation authorities. 12. The F.A.F.O. whether treated as such or as revision is hereby dismissed. Costs easy. The order of the Munsif holding that the suit had abated is set aside and is substituted by the order which had been passed by the Civil Judge while hearing the appeal. Stay order is vacated.