By Court: This application by the defendants is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Buxar, rejecting their application for recording an order of abatement under section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, (Bihar Act XXII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). on the ground that after passing of the preliminary decree in the suit for partition, the mischief of section 4 (c) of the Act would cease to have any application to a proceeding for preparation of final decree. 2. This case was originally heard by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, sitting singly, and thereafter his Lordship was pleased to refer the case to a Division Bench, and that is how this case has been placed before us. 3. Whereas learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that the proceeding for preparation of a final decree being a proceeding in continuation of the suit namely, the partition suit in question, in which the preliminary decree for partition passed by the trial court had been affirmed up to the Supreme Court, the mischief of section 4 (c) of the Act would apply, counsel for the plaintiff opposite party, on the other hand, contended that the nature of the proceeding in question was akin to the execution proceeding, inasmuch as the rights of the contesting parties had already been declared finally by the preliminary decree in question and, therefore, nothing remained for any further declaration, that is, at he stage of the final decree, there was no question of any abatement. 4. At the time of admission of this application on 10.7.1976, this Court stayed further proceedings in the Court below. It appears from a petition dated 24.9.1976 filed by the original plaintiff opposite party Ramayan Rai before the Consolidation Officer, Nawanagar, which is Annexure 1' to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in this Court on 1.7.1977, that a prayer had been made in that petition by the original plaintiff opposite party for allotment of certain lands of his own choice, details where of were given in the said petition. When the learned counsel for the parties were confronted with this, Mr. When the learned counsel for the parties were confronted with this, Mr. Sharan, appearing for the petitioner, stated before us that the parties had also entered into a compromise before the Consolidation authorities, according to which the original plaintiff opposite party had received huge amount of money amounting to more than rupees one lac in lieu of his interest in the properties in question and thereafter he went back from the compromise. The fact as to whether the compromise had been legally arrived at between the parties, as alleged by the petitioners, was being enquired into by the Consolidation authorities and at the moment it is pending before the Director of Consolidation. 5. We have stated the above facts simply to highlight that both the parties have since submitted to the jurisdiction of the Consolidation authorities for allotment of lands. As such, whether the case of the petitioners of giving up his interest by the original plaintiff opposite party is true or not, apart from being sub judice, is not our concern at the moment. It is obvious that if the case of the petitioners is accepted to be true, then the matter will be over and the question of allotment of lands would not arise. Otherwise, in view of the attitude of the parties, as already indicated above, the Consolidation authorities will have to go into the question of alloting specified lands to their respective shares in terms of the final decree, inasmuch as the parties are at one that they are claiming half share according to the declaration made by the Civil Court under the preliminary decree passed by the trial court. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts coming to our knowledge, we refrain from deciding the question of law referred to us, namely, as to whether the provisions of section 4 (c) of the Act would be made at a final decree stage or not. From the discussions made above, it is obvious that the proceeding for preparation of the final decree pending before the trial court cannot be prosecuted and it must come to an end in view of the fact that the question of allotment of shares has already been taken by the parties themselves to the consolidation authorities. From the discussions made above, it is obvious that the proceeding for preparation of the final decree pending before the trial court cannot be prosecuted and it must come to an end in view of the fact that the question of allotment of shares has already been taken by the parties themselves to the consolidation authorities. We would, accordingly, drop the proceeding for the preparation of final decree and leave the parties to persue their remedy before the Consolidation authorities which they have already availed of. 7. In view of the discussions made above the application is disposed of subject to the observations and directions given above. There will be no order as to costs. Application disposed of.