JUDGMENT Jagmohan Lal, J. - Second Appeal No. 652 of 1958 was decided by learned single Judge of this Court on 1-9-1966. Against that decision the appellant filed the present review .petition on 30-9-1966. As the learned single Judge who decided the appeal was not available to dispose of the review application it was ordered to be put up before a Bench by the learned Chief Justice. The Bench issued a rule on this petition. The petition has been contested on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. During the pendency of this review application the village, in which the land in dispute is situate, has come under consolidation operations. So the question that arises for consideration is whether the proceedings in this review petition including the second appeal, out of which these proceedings have arisen, should abate under Section 5(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or not. 3. It is not disputed that the suit related to adjudication of right in respect of agricultural land as contemplated by Section 5 of the Act. Sri B.L. Shukla; learned counsel for the opposite parties however contends that this Court should first consider if this review application is to be allowed or rejected and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the review application should be allowed, then only the proceedings would become pending within the meaning of Section 5(2) which, can be abated under that section. Before that the proceedings need not be abated. On the other hand, Sri H. N. Tilhari learned counsel for the petitioner, states that once a rule has been issued on the review petition, the judgment dated 1-9-1966 passed in the second appeal has been put in jeopardy and it cannot be decided by this Court whether this review application should finally be allowed or dismissed because of the bar created by Section 5(2). The relevant provision of Section 5(2) reads as follows : "Upon the said publication of the notification under Sub-sec. (2) of Section 4 the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which. The relevant provision of Section 5(2) reads as follows : "Upon the said publication of the notification under Sub-sec. (2) of Section 4 the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which. The notification relates, namely (a) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration or 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 passed in this behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated..." 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is no mention in this provision about review proceeding or review jurisdiction. The reason for this omission was obvious, because there is no such thing as review jurisdiction. As was observed by the Rajasthan High Court in Maji Mohan Kanwar v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 Raj. 264 , the power to review under order 47 can be exercised by every court whether it is the court of first instance or an appellate court or a court of revision. That is ;why it was not necessary to make a specific mention of review in this provision. The word "proceedings", which has been used in Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, also came for interpretation before two Benches of this Court at Allahabad in Dilawar Singh v. The Gram Sansaj, AIR 1973 Alld. 411 and Ram Bahadur v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1973 Alld. 414. In both these cases it was held that the word."proceedings" had been used in Section 52 in a comprehensive sense so as to include even an application for restoration against an order passed ex-parte by one of the consolidation authorities. In our opinion, the same principle can be applied to the interpretation of the word `proceeding' for the purpose of Section 5(2). Of course, the mere filing of an application for review does not necessarily put the decision against which the review is directed in jeoe pardy so as to keep the matter pending. In our opinion, the same principle can be applied to the interpretation of the word `proceeding' for the purpose of Section 5(2). Of course, the mere filing of an application for review does not necessarily put the decision against which the review is directed in jeoe pardy so as to keep the matter pending. A review application may be, time barred or it may not prima facie he covered by the grounds mentioned in order 47. In such a case a review petition can be dismissed summarily and at that stage there is no question of application of Section 5 (2) Of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. But once a review application has been admitted and a rule has been issued, the Court is seized of the matter in dispute and the proceedings in the second appeal are revived. On hearing the parties the review applicant can be allowed and the decision already given in the second (appeal can be reversed or the review application can be dismissed. But this cannot be done now in view of the bar placed by Section 5 (2). 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties referred to Rules 4 and 8 of Order 47 which contemplate these stages in connection with a review application. The first stage is when the review application is considered by the court ex parte and at that stage either it can be dismissed summarily or a rule can be issued to the other party. The second stage is when the opposite party in compliance with the rule has put in appearance and he contests that review application. On hearing the parties the court can dismiss the review application if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for review. If, however, the review application is not dismissed and it is allowed, the appeal has to be reheard. But it is not necessary that in every case of review there should be the second and third stage separately. If the review petition has been made on the ground of discovery of some fresh material which was not previously in the knowledge of the petitioner, it is but pro-per that a matter has to be reheard for allowing the review petition and the court has to take into consideration the fresh material as well after allowing the other party to rebut that material. In such a case the second stage has necessarily to be kept separate from the third stage. But in other cases when there is an apparent error in the judgment it is not necessary that a distinct order should, be passed first that the revision application is allowed and then the appeal " itself be heard separately. On the other hand, after hearing the parties the review application can be allowed and the decision can be altered by correction of that apparent error. We are, therefore; of the opinion that once a rule has been issued on a review petition, the decision against which the review petition has been filed is put in jeopardy and the matter becomes pending before the court and as such it is a proceeding within the meaning of Section 5(2) which is liable to be abated. 6. We accordingly order that the proceeding giving rise to this review petition including the second appeal out of which it has arisen shall stand abated under Section 5(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. There shall, be no order as to costs.