JUDGMENT S.B. SANYAL, J 1. This second appeal is by defendant no.13. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition of land plaintiff claiming his share to the extent of 5 kathas 1-3/4 dhurs. The land appertains to plot no. 3556 Khata No. 1518 of village Waini Ratanpur. As this case has to be disposed of under section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as "the Act") there is no need of stating the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that this is a suit to adjudicate the right and interest of the parties in the agricultural land. 2. The appellant has filed an affidavit stating that there is a notification under section 3 of the Act. It has been published in the official Gazette on 28.3.1977 by which scheme for consolidation of holding is continuing in the village where the suit land is situated. In that view of the matter he has claimed that this appeal, the title appeal and the original title suit must abate under the provisions of section 4(c) of the Act. There in no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents stating to the contrary and/or any denotification of the said notice in the mean while. Therefore, in substance the land in question is under the consolidation proceedings continuing in the concerned village. 3. Mr. Janardan Sinha submits that on the strength of the Supreme Court decisions as well as of this court, the suit as well as the appeal in the court below and in this court shall abate as a consequence ensuing upon the issue of the said notification. Mr. Mathur on the other hand, submitted that the decree obtained by his clients has been executed in Execution Case No.31 of 1976 and his clients have already taken delivery of possession. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that the abatement will not affect the decree which has been already executed and implemented. 4. I think there is force in the argument of Mr. Janardan Sinha. It is well settled that on the making of a notification bringing the land involved in a dispute in a civil proceeding under the scheme of consolidation proceeding pending in the civil court either in the trial courts, appeal or revision shall abate as a consequence ensuing upon the issue of a notification. Janardan Sinha. It is well settled that on the making of a notification bringing the land involved in a dispute in a civil proceeding under the scheme of consolidation proceeding pending in the civil court either in the trial courts, appeal or revision shall abate as a consequence ensuing upon the issue of a notification. The effect of abatement would be that the civil proceeding as a whole would come to a naught. He has relied upon a decision in Most. Bibi Rahmani Khatoon & ors vs. Harkoo Gope and ors. In the said case it was the contention of the appellants that on the making of notification what abates is the second appeal only and not the entire civil proceeding. This was negatived by the Supreme Court by observing that the order of the High Court impugned in the appeal is legal and valid so far as it not only directed abatement of the appeal pending before the High Court but also abating the judgments and decree of the trial court and first appellate court because the entire civil proceeding came to naught. 5. Mr. Mathur on the other hand, relied upon a decision of this court in Dr. Jagdish Prasad Gupta vs. Sardar Satyanarain Singh & ors. where their Lordship held that section 4(c) of the Act, will not affect the abatement of a trial court decree or final decree. I do not think that Mr. Mathur is correct inasmuch as the said decision states that where the decree had attained finality and the matter has concluded and the same is nowhere subjudice, the question of its abatement under section 4(c) of the Act, does not at all arise. The said decision was rendered in a miscellaneous appeal arising out of an order refusing to set aside ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the said appeal was taken no before the High Court the appeal even as against the final decree had been disposed of i.e. the suit no more remained pending. This question does not arise in this case inasmuch as the appeal before me is against the preliminary decree itself. If the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the court below is interfered with, all actions taken under the judgment and decree of the courts below would automatically be disturbed. 6. This question does not arise in this case inasmuch as the appeal before me is against the preliminary decree itself. If the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the court below is interfered with, all actions taken under the judgment and decree of the courts below would automatically be disturbed. 6. The decision of the Supreme Court has unequivocally laid down the consequences of notification and what is to ensue therefrom. I am bound by the said decision. The execution of the decree is or no consequence all will not change the position of law in this regard. 7. In the result the instant appeal as well as the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and the trial court abate under section 4(c) of the Act. Everything will revive after denotification. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.