JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the revisional court dated 6th July 1979 confirming the order passed by the Munsif abating the suit under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Suit No. 181 of 1976 was filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the will dated 29th July 1975 executed by one Surya Pal in favour of the daughter-in-law Smt. Dharma. The suit was filed on the allegations that the alleged will was fraudulently obtained and in fact Surya Pal, the alleged testator, never came to the court to execute the will and he never put his thumb mark on the will and that some body else was produced as an imposter who succeeded in impersonating and putting his thumb mark for Surya Pal. 2. The trial court framed an issue as to whether the document was void or voidable and whether the suit would abate under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The trial court held that the suit would abate under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the allegations made in the plaint amount that the will in dispute is a void document. In revision the said view was affirmed by the revisional court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that once the consolidation proceedings were over it was open to the petitioner file the present suit and the view taken by the courts below that the suit would abate under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is a view manifestly erroneous. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh, AIR 1974 SC 1657 . In the case of Suba Singh (Supra) the entire consolidation proceedings were over and thereafter the question of heirship was the subject matter of the suit. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Here when the question of heirship opened an application for mutation was made after the death of Surya Pal Singh. The application for mutation was made under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioner contested the application on the allegation that the testator Surya Pal Singh never executed the will and the same was obtained by impersonation. This plea was not accepted by the Consolidation Officer. The application for mutation was made under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioner contested the application on the allegation that the testator Surya Pal Singh never executed the will and the same was obtained by impersonation. This plea was not accepted by the Consolidation Officer. It is, therefore, a case where the matter was adjudicated in the consolidation courts and the plea of the petitioner was repelled. The principle laid down in the case of Suba Singh (supra) would therefore, not apply to the facts of the present case. 5. On the basis of the allegations in the plaint the document would be a void document and not a voidable document. This view finds support from my decision in Amanatullah v. Mohd. Fariyad, 1978 R. D. 262. The principle laid down in this ease fully applies to the present case. 6. In view of the above the view taken by the revisional court cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. In the result there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.