JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated June 21, 1972 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, allowing the first appeal arising out of a case under Section 229-B, UPZA and LR Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant had moved an application on July 29, 1972 for abatement of the appeal and suit under Sec. 5(2) C.H. Act as the village had come under consolidation operations vide Notification dated June 24, 1972 published in the U.P. Gazette. Respondent No. 1, Mohd. Ahmad, on the other hand, filed an affidavit on January 16, 1979 to the effect that the appellant, Hafiz Ali died on December 23, 1975 and as the application for substitution has been moved on December 28, 1976, it is time-bared and the appeal is liable to be declared abated under O. 22, R. 3, CPC and not under Section 5, UPCH Act. 4. The only question for decision in this second appeal is thus whether the abatement will be under S. 5(2) CH Act or under O.22, R.3, CPC. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited Ram Nath v. Puranmashi 1975 RD 152, in which Sri Mubarak Hasan, Member, has observed as follows :- "The words in Sec. 5(2)(a) to the effect that on an order passed in this behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated clearly show that the suit or proceeding did not abate automatically but they abated on an order being passed in this behalf. There is no question of automatic abatement under Sec. 5(2)(a) of the CH Act. Material date is the date of passing the order for abatement. Such order for abatement will not take effect from the date of notification under Section 4 of the UPCH Act. The cases of Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh and others referred to above apply on all fours on this point. The cases of Bahadur v. Bachai and others do not apply to the facts of this case. Respondent No. 2, died and his legal representatives were not brought on record. The appeal became incompetent and did not remain properly constituted appeal. The cases of Bahadur v. Bachai and others do not apply to the facts of this case. Respondent No. 2, died and his legal representatives were not brought on record. The appeal became incompetent and did not remain properly constituted appeal. That being so no order for abatement of appeal under Section 5 of the UPCH Act can be passed in spite of notification under Sec. 5 of the UPCH Act." The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, cited two decisions, one is Munshi Maqboot Raza v. Hasan Raza 1977 RD 146, in which learned bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that every suit in respect of any right or interest in the area in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under the Act, pending before any court or authority, whether of first instance or of appeal, shall stand abated. The other is, Uma Shanker v. Ram Sukh U.P. Revenue Judgment 1978 p. 6, in which it has been held that under sub-section (2) of Sec. 5 as soon as a notification under Sec. 4(2) of the U Consolidation of Holdings Act is issued the abatement of a suit or an appeal regarding land in which adjudication of rights can be done by the consolidation authorities is automatic. The subsequent death and non-substitution of heirs of a deceased party will be no further bar. 5. A reading of Sec. 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act makes it clear that abatement of a suit or appeal under sub-section (2) follows as an automatic consequence of the publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4. If, therefore, the death of any party occurs subsequent to the issue of the notification, the consequences of Section 5 of the Act will still take place. On the other hand, if death of a party occurs prior to the issue of the notification and no steps are taken within time to substitute the heirs. Order 22, Rule 3, CPC will come to effect and the suit or the appeal be abated under this Rule, will not be further abated under Section 5(2) of the UPCH Act. In the present case the notification under Section 4(2) of the CH Act was issued on June 24, 1972 whereas the death of the appellant has occurred much later on December 23, 1975. In the present case the notification under Section 4(2) of the CH Act was issued on June 24, 1972 whereas the death of the appellant has occurred much later on December 23, 1975. The result is that the appeal along with the original suit shall stand abated under Section 5(2) C.H. Act.