JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - The plaintiff-applicant filed Suit No. 1274 of 1965 for a declaration that the ex parte decree dated April 28, 1960 under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act passed by the Judicial Officer, Salempur was illegal and void and was not binding upon him. The aforesaid relief was claimed on the basis that the decree had been obtained from the court of Judicial Officer by practising fraud inasmuch as it was represented to the court that the summonses were duly served upon the plaintiff while, in fact, he was out of the village. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif but on appeal by the defendant-respondents, it was dismissed by the lower appellate court on its view that the claim that the plaintiff had gone out of the village has not been established and further that the summonses were duly served by refusal. The plaintiff then filed Second Appeal No. 774 of 1969 in this court which was admitted on December 1, 1969 and notice directed to issue to the defendant-respondents. On August 18, 1972 the present application was filed after serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents with the allegation that the village in which the plot in dispute which was the subject-matter of the appeal, is situate, had been brought under consolidation operations through a notification dated August 18, 1969 published in the U. P. Gazette dated August 30, 1969. The prayer in the application was that the appeal may be declared to have abated under Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The notification aforesaid was issued several months after the appellate judgment which was rendered on November 30, 1968. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant invited an order on this application. According to him, the appeal should be declared to have abated, inasmuch as, the eventual effect of a decree in a suit of the kind which has given rise to the present appeal, would be to affect the right or interest of the parties in land lying in an area in respect whereof a notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had been issued. He has placed reliance in this regard upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of J. N. Shukla v. S. R. Pande (1969 All LJ 768) as also that of the Supreme Court in Gorakhnath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh ( AIR 1973 SC 2451 ) as well as of a learned Single Judge in the case of Amanatullah v. Mohd. Fariyad (1978 All LJ 661). The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the contrary, urged that the suit out of which the second appeal arises was only for a declaration that an earlier decree of the revenue court was not binding and that such a relief could not be granted by consolidation court, and, in any case, the decree passed by the Judicial Officer being only a voidable decree, the suit cannot be said to have abated under Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. He has placed reliance upon the decision in Hasrat v. Haridwar, 1973 All WR (HC) 325: (1973 All LJ 273) decided by a learned Single Judge of this court and that of a Full Bench in the case of Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna (1976 All WC 412). 3. The Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Nath (supra) related to a suit for the cancellation of a voidable sale deed relating to an agricultural plot and it was held therein that such a suit would not abate under Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath case (supra), the Full Bench observed in paragraph 8 of the report, that the said decision had been given on the specific question relating to abatement of suits concerning void and voidable transactions and declared the law in that regard. In the case of Hasrat (supra), the test laid down by the learned Judge was as to whether the plaintiff could get real and effective relief from the consolidation authorities and further that, inasmuch as, the relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of constructions raised on the land could not be granted by the consolidation authorities, the suit for such relief would not abate under Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The view taken by the Division Bench in J. N. Shuklas case (supra) to the effect that a relief that a document was invalid, inoperative and void claimed by the plaintiff could be adjudicated upon by the consolidation courts, was expressly approved by the Supreme Court in Gorakh Naths case. That principle was extended to the case of a suit for declaration that a decree in an earlier suit was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs in the case of Amanatullah (1978 All LJ 661) by a learned single Judge of this Court. 4. The principle that a suit for a declaration that a document (like a sale-deed) or a decree which may affect the right or interest in any land lying in an area brought under the consolidation operation was void can be adjudicated upon by the consolidation courts stands firmly established by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of J. N. Shukla (1969 All LJ 768) as approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Gorakh Nath ( AIR 1973 SC 2451 ) and applied in the case of Amanutullah. In the present case also the plaintiff-appellant had claimed in the plaint that a decree which affected his right or interest in the land in question was void and inoperative. Such a claim could be adjudicated upon by a consolidation court. Consequently, where during the pendency of the present Second Appeal the land, in respect whereof the decree is sought to be declared void in the suit giving rise to the present Second Appeal, was brought under consolidation operation, it has to be held that the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will be applicable and the same shall abate. The suit pending at the appellate stage is ordered to have abated.