JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the judgment and order dated December 26, 1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, in Appeal No. 876 of 1972/Faizabad arising out of the order dated March 2, 1972 passed by the Judicial Officer (Revenue), Akbarpur in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act Chhedi Ram v. Ram Padarath and others. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. The opposite parties have not appeared in spite of due service. 3. The facts are briefly as follows: Opposite party No. 1, Chhedi Ram had filed a suit under Section 229-B against Ram Padarath and others which was dismissed by the trial court's order dated March 2, 1972. Chhedi Ram filed an appeal against this order which has been stayed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division till the decision of a suit pending in the consolidation courts. Ram Rao, who was one of the defendants in the suit, has come up in revision against this order of the learned Additional Commissioner. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner has stayed the appeal only on the ground that a suit relating to some other land in another village is pending before the consolidation courts in which identical points are in dispute between the parties. The judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner shows that the present suit relates to village Para where consolidation operations have concluded, while the suit pending before the consolidation courts relates to village Gokala where consolidation operations are going on. It was argued before the learned Additional Commissioner that for application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was necessary that one court should have jurisdiction to try both the suits for the application of the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "10. 5. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "10. Stay of suit - No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matters in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other court in India haying jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court." The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned Additional Commissioner has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 10, C.P.C. and has also not correctly understood the words previously instituted suit. According to the learned counsel there was no evidence on record to show that any previously instituted suit was pending and further that proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be deemed to be a suit as contemplated under Section 10, C.P.C. 6. First of all it may be observed that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure refers to stay of suits and not of appeals. The plaintiff-opposite party, Chhedi Ram who filed the present suit in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer on March 14, 1969 must have known that proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in relation to village Gokala were going on yet he filed the present suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer and did not take shelter behind the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code while the suit was going on. Only when the suit had been decided against him, he has tried to take shelter behind Section 10 C.P.C. in the appellate Court. However, Section 10 is no longer applicable, as the suit had already been decide by the trial court and now the appeal has to be decided one way or the other and cannot be stayed. The second point to be observed is that it cannot be said that the matter in issue in present suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the proceedings which are going on before the consolidation authorities. The second point to be observed is that it cannot be said that the matter in issue in present suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the proceedings which are going on before the consolidation authorities. It is undisputed that the proceedings before the consolidation authorities relate to rights in some land in village Gokala which is entirely different from the land in the present suit which is situated in village Para. It is indeed surprising that the learned Additional Commissioner has ignored this distinction. The next point to be observed is that a proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not constitute a suit within the meaning of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reads as follows: "12 Decision of matters relating to changes and transaction affecting rights or interests recorded in revised records - (1) All matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interests recorded in the revised records published under sub-Section (1) of Section 10 for which a cause of action had not arisen when proceeding sunder Section 7 to 9 were started or were in progress, may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as and when they arise, but not later than the date of notification, under Section 52, under sub-Section (1) of Section 6. (2) The provisions of sections 7 to 11 shall 'mutatis mutandis', apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-Section (1), as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid Act. Sections." If the view is taken that a proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will also constitute a suit, then there is an obvious conflict between Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the consolidation authorities will be precluded from proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act where an earlier suit is pending in another Court. However, the scheme of consolidation as provided by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is such that the consolidation authorities can speedily dispose of matters regarding rights and interests of parties in the villages under consolidation operations. However, the scheme of consolidation as provided by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is such that the consolidation authorities can speedily dispose of matters regarding rights and interests of parties in the villages under consolidation operations. It has, therefore, been provided that all suits for declaration of rights and interest in any land lying in the area under consolidation are abated under Section 5(2)(a) of the Act and thereafter the special procedure provided in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is followed. This is, however, only with regard to the area where consolidation operations are going on and will have no effect on areas lying outside the consolidation operations. Sec. 12 does not use the word "suit" and has deliberately referred to the proceedings before the Consolidation authorities as "matters". We cannot say that the "matter" and "suit" mean the same thing and are interchangeable. If the intention of the legislature was that matters decided by the consolidation authorities should be deemed to be "suits", the word "suits" could have been easily used in Section 12 in place of the "matters." 7. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to a number of decisions reported in 1973 R.D., 423, 1974 R.D. (Supplementary) 157, 1974 R.D. (Supplementary) 270, and 1976 R.D. 221 in support of his contention. I, however, need not refer to these decisions. It is quite clear to me that the learned Additional Commissioner has erred in law in holding that the appeal in the present suit is to be stayed pending the decision of the consolidation authorities in some proceedings relating to an entirely different land lying in a different village. The legal position is that the hearing of the appeal in the present case cannot be stayed. 8. The learned Additional Commissioner has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not hearing the appeal on merits ad by staying the appeal. The result is that I hereby allow the revision and set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner shall now hear the appeal on merits in accordance with law as soon as practicable.