JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This appeal arising out of a suit for division of holding has been pending for two purposes - one substitution of heirs is place of respondent No. 4 deceased and for consideration of abatement under Section 5(2) U.P.C.H. Act as the village having the land in dispute is under consolidation proceedings and the notification under section 4(2) was published in Gazette dated august 30, 1980. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent has contested the abatement under Section 5(2) and has argued that the appeal should abate for non-substitution of heirs. It was observed on August 18, 1982 that in a case under Section 176 abatement for non-substitution of heirs of respondent No. 3 was not justified and the hearing proceeded. The same position applied to respondent No. 4 who was reported to be dead vide order dated vide April 28, 1983. So far service on heirs has not been possible. Still since the application for substitution was filed in time, this application for substitution was field in time, this application dated April 26, 1983 is allowed. 3. The question whether the decision in the other appeals decided by the first appellate court will stand as res judicata in this case, should not stand in the way of abatement of his appeal under Section 5(2) C.H. Act because such an abatement only takes away the jurisdiction of the revenue court and the title as well as consideration of any legal points remain open before the consolidation court. The effect of res judicata can well be considered by the consolidation court. 4. Accordingly, it view of admitted position of consolidation proceeding having stated this appeal along with the suit is abated under Section 5(2) C.H. Act. All the records of this appeal and connected records be returned without delay.