Judgment 1. The plaintiff has come in revision, against the order dated 23-5-1979, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No.127 of 1976, by which the learned Judge has held that the suit, filed by the petitioner, has abated under S.4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. From the order impugned, it is apparent that the petition for abating the suit under S.4(c) of the Act, which was filed on 23-5-1979 by the defendant, was disposed of on the same day without the plaintiffs counsel having been heard, which is clear from paragraph 2 of the order. From the impugned order it is gathered that the counsel for the plaintiff did not turn up when the case was called out. Apparently to me it appears that this order is in violation of the proviso to S.4(c) of the Act, which enjoins a duty to notice the party and give an opportunity of being heard, which necessarily means a reasonable opportunity. The petition under S.4(c) of the Act has been disposed of on the day of filing itself, which does not seem, to be proper, because requirement of giving to the other side an opportunity of being heard naturally means providing an opportunity for countering the, facts, besides this the order appears to be a mere routine order. I find that the court below has failed to apply its mind to the facts and law arising in the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforesaid suit, i.e.. Title Suit No.127 of 1976, for specific performance of contract for sale on the basis of a Mahadnama executed by the opposite party with regard to the land in question. The learned counsel has further submitted that apart from the fact that the impugned order is violative of the proviso to Sec. 4(c) of the Act, the court below has failed to take into consideration that the contract for sale of immovable properties does not create any interest in the immovable property and there being no prayer for declaration of right and interest in the properties, the proviso to S.4(c) of the Act is not attracted in case of specific performance of contract. Reliance has been placed on the case of Sukhilal Sah V/s. Angrahit Jha (1979 BBCJ (HC) 566) : ( AIR 1980 Pat 18 ). 4. I have already said that the impugned order is infirm on account of want of proper opportunity to the parties of being heard as required under the proviso to Sec. 4(c) of the Act and, therefore, the order is erroneous and without jurisdiction and fit to be set aside. 5. In this view of the matter, I propose to send back the case to the court below for hearing the parties afresh and I, therefore, refrain from expressing my opinion with respect to the point agitated that provision of Sec. 4(c) of the Act is not attracted in a case for the specific performance of contract. 6. In the result, the case is sent back to the court below for hearing the parties afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties and for passing necessary order in accordance with law. I may further mention here that an application has been filed on behalf of some of the intervenors under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a prayer has been made to implead them in the category of the opposite parties. Since I am remanding the case to the court below, it is not necessary at this stage to decide the present application for impleading them as parties in this revision. The intervenors may agitate their grievance, if so advised, in the court below and the court will dispose of the same in accordance with law. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.