JUDGMENT G.S. Tewari, Member - In the above two cases a common question of law has been referred for decision to this larger Bench constituted by order dated 19-12-1980 by Sri M.C. Sbarma, the then Senior most Member/Chairman of the Board. 2. Sri R.S. Johri, I.A.S., Member, referred the following question for being decided by a larger Bench by his order dated 0.2.1976 : "Whether a reference or revision directed against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree or setting aside an ex parte decree is liable to be abated under Section 5 of the UPCH Act on publication of notification under Section 4 of the UPCH Act in respect of the land in dispute." 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the cases together and have perused the record. Our answer to the question referred shall be applicable to both the cases, its copy shall be placed on the connected file. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the proceedings arising out of a restoration application are not proceedings of nature contemplated by Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act, under which only proceedings for correction of records and suits and proceeding, in respect of declaration of rights or interest are covered. Therefore, the present reference or revision cannot be abated Reliance has been placed on 1972 AWR (Rev.) p. 10, 1964 RD, p. 197 ; 1968 RD p. 423 and 1973 RD p. 453. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the opposite parties that the reference or revision is a continuation of the suit or appeal. Therefore, they should also be abated along with the suit. Reliance has been placed on 1975 RD p. 52. 6. Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act runs as follows :- "5 (2). 5. It has been argued on behalf of the opposite parties that the reference or revision is a continuation of the suit or appeal. Therefore, they should also be abated along with the suit. Reliance has been placed on 1975 RD p. 52. 6. Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act runs as follows :- "5 (2). Upon the said publication of notification under subsection (2) of Section 4 the following further consequences shall ensue in (he area to which the notification relates, namely ; (a) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration or lights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court or authority whether of first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated." In the revision or reference arising out of restoration matters the rights of the parties are not adjudicated upon and the matter cannot be decided by the consolidation authorities, Therefore, to our mind, the provisions of abatement of such revision or reference along with its proceedings are not covered by Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act. The revision and reference in such matters is not continuation of the suit as the appeal is. It is only continuation of the application for setting aside an ex parte decree or for restoring the suit and nothing more. The words `reference or revision' and nothing more. The words `reference or revision' used in Section 5 (2) (a) do not relate to revisions and references connected with the suit or the appeal, they do not relate to applications under Order IX Rule 9 or under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Our view is supported by consistent rulings of the Board reported in 1971 AWR (Rev.) ; 1964 RD p. 197 ; 1969 RD 423 and 1973 RD 483. 7. Our view is supported by consistent rulings of the Board reported in 1971 AWR (Rev.) ; 1964 RD p. 197 ; 1969 RD 423 and 1973 RD 483. 7. The view reported in 1974 RD, p. 330 holding that by mere admission of review application the court is seized of the matter in dispute and the proceedings in the second appeal are revived and the matter becomes pending before the court and as such it is a proceeding within the meaning of Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act and is liable to be abated is no longer a good law in view of the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Sukai Singh and others v. Smt. Devi and another, 1973 R.D. (SOC) p. 56. 8. The view, expressed in Paras Nath v. Gaon Sabha, 1975 R.D. 52 is as follows :- "The suits having been pending when the notification under Section 4 (2) of the UPCH Act was published, the suit and the revision are liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act. The position would have been different if the restoration applications had been rejected. In that case the suits and the revisions could not be abated under Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act." This view, to our mind, does not lay down correct law and is against the consistent practise and convention of the Board Laid down in the aforesaid rulings. It has Laid down two standards regarding the same proceeding which is not warranted by law. It has been held in it, that the revision or reference would not have been liable to be abated along with the suit if the suit would not have been restored. This view takes it for granted that the suit was not restored finally and the order restoring it was not revisable. By holding so, a discriminatory method has been applied and the remedy of revision or appeal has been denied to the opposite aggrieved party in whose favour a vested right was created by the dismissal of the suit or by the ex parte decree. By holding so, a discriminatory method has been applied and the remedy of revision or appeal has been denied to the opposite aggrieved party in whose favour a vested right was created by the dismissal of the suit or by the ex parte decree. Two types of standards cannot be allowed to remain in practise which are likely to bring a bad name to the judicial courts, and the trial courts in such matters can become despots because of the application of the double standard of dealing in the same proceeding. If the suit is improperly and illegally restored, then, according to this ruling, the suit shall be abated. There can be a tendency to pass such orders forgetting legality and propriety. The view expressed in 1971 AWR p. 10 lays down a good law and is in consonance with the previous rulings reported in 1964 RD p. 423 and 1973 RD 433 and we are in full agreement with the views expressed in them. We are also fortified in our view by the view expressed by Sri R.B. Misra, Hon'ble Judge of this High Court in Paras Nath Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, Writ Petition No. 7480 of 1974 decided on 18-10-79 quashing the order in the case reported in 1975 RD p. 32, wherein he held as follows :- "I find considerable force in this contention. By now it is well settled that an application for restoration is not covered by Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, therefore, it cannot be abated under Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and if that be the position, the revision arising out of the restoration proceedings cannot also be abated. To hold otherwise, would create an anomalous position. It was open to the petitioner to file a revision against the order restoring the suit and if the Board of Revenue eventually allowed the revision application and set aside that order restoring the suit, it would be of no avail in case the suit itself had already been abated under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on initiation of the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act." 9. So our answer to the legal point referred is that, where a reference or revision is directed against an order refusing to set aside an ex-parte decree or setting aside an ex-parte decree, the revision or reference arising out of such restoration matters is not liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act on publication of notification under Section 4 of that Act in respect of the land in dispute. 10. Let the reference and revision be put up before the learned Members having jurisdiction for disposal on merits.