Judgment B.P.Jha, J. 1. The point for decision in the present case is: Whether the provisions of Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) apply to an execution proceeding? 2. The answer must be given in the negative. In Money Execution No. 1 of 1973, an application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was filed for releasing the subject-matter of the execution proceeding from attachment. The Court below was of opinion that the provisions of Sec. 4(c) of the Act will apply to the execution proceeding. The Court was also of opinion that as the Court will have to adjudicate in respect of the right, title and interest in the properties sought to be released from attachment, and, as such, the execution proceeding will also abate under Sec. 4(c) of the Act. 3. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Bharose Lal V/s. Sukhdei and Ors. -- . In that decision, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Consolidation authorities have no authority to decide as to whether a particular plot is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree or not. It is only the Civil Court which can decide such a matter. In my opinion, since no relief can be granted 10 the petitioner by the consolidation authorities, as such a proceeding is not hit by Sec. 4(c) of the Act. 4. The only question required to be decided is: Whether the property is liable to attachment and sale or not under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure? The consolidation authority is not entitled in law to decide this question. Hence, the proceeding under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code will not abate under Sec. 4(c) of the Act. 5. A suit is instituted under Sec.26 of the Code on presentation of plaint and the suit comes to an end when a decree is passed. An execution proceeding will not abate as the declaration sought for in respect of title and, interest in the suit land has already been declared in the judgment and decree of the suit. 5. A suit is instituted under Sec.26 of the Code on presentation of plaint and the suit comes to an end when a decree is passed. An execution proceeding will not abate as the declaration sought for in respect of title and, interest in the suit land has already been declared in the judgment and decree of the suit. Hence, a suit or a proceeding in respect of declaration of right title and interest or a proceeding for correction of record of rights will abate. 6. Sec. 4 deals with the effect of the notification under Sec.3 (i) of the Act. Sec. 4 (e) deals with abatement of a proceeding or a suit. 7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Sec. 4(c) of the Act does not apply to an execution proceeding, nor to a proceeding initiated under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code. 8. In this view of the matter, I hold that the Court below erred in law in holding that the proceeding under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code abated under Section 4(c) of the Act. Hence, I set aside the impugned order and direct the executing court to decide the proceeding under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code in accordance with law. 9. In this circumstance, I allow the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 22nd May, 1979, passed by the learned Additional Sub-Judge. The parties shall bear their own costs. S.S.Sandhawalia, J. 10 I agree.