JUDGMENT : S. Shamsul Hasan, J. This application is directed against the impugned ORDER :dated 5-5-1981 by which the suit pas been abated. 2. The relief sought for in the plaint, a copy of which was placed before me, is as follows:- (1) oxhj gkykr lnj vnkyr ls ;g rtoht Qjek;k tk;s fd oksafldk cDlhlukek&5-16&10&69 tkghj uohLrs eqE efrljk dqvj oukek eqnkyge Qfjd vfoyukfylh dk gqvk eqE efrljk dk ugha gS tks fcYdqy tky Qjsoh oks QthZ gS ftlds dksbZ ikcUnh Åij eu eqnb;ku ds ugha gSaA (2) ;g f³xzh cVokjk okgd eu eqnb;ku Åij eqnkyge lk{kh Qjek;dj eu eqnb;ku dk r[kkrk odnj fgLls vkB vkuk vUnj ,jkth cVokjk ryo ogSykrh deh’uj gqvkA vnkyr tSlk equkflc le>s ,ygns vc iV~Vh eqnkge dk;e dj fn;k tk;sA (3) [kkpkZ vnkyr oks tSjokjh fnyk feysA (4) fnxj ftl nknjlh dk eueqn;ku eqLrgd ls fnyk feysA 3. From this it is clear that the deed itself is sought to be set aside and to be declared void. Applying the principles laid down in Gorakh Nath Vs. Hari Naraia Singh (A.I.R. 1973 Supreme Court, 2451), I hold that the suit could not have been abated. 4. My own decision in Chhote Gope and others Versus Kali Gope (1983 B.B.C.J., 124) also reported in 1983 PLJR 357 was brought to my notice particularly the remark of the Editor that this decision appears to be in conflict with the decision reported in 1982 B.B.C.J. 114, reported in 1983 PLJR 154 of the Patna High Court. I may say with regret that the Editor has not cared to carefully examine the Patna decision in relation to the Supreme Court decision cited above. Secondly, I have based my decision on a Supreme Court decision, which takes precedence above all decisions of this Court. 5. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned ORDER :is set aside. The court below is hereby directed to try the suit. Let the lower court records be sent down immediately.