JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 156/78T in the Court of the Munsif, Balasore have filed til revision challenging the order dated 23-8-1980 of the learned Munsif holding that the suit abates under section 4(iv) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). 2. The petitioners filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from interfering with their possession over the disputed land by constructing a road or in any other manner. While the said suit was pending, the opposite parries filed an application in the court praying that necessary orders holding that the suit abated under the provisions of the Act be passed The petitioners in their objection to the said application stated that since the suit is one tor injunction and the authorities under the Act are not empowered to grant such relief, the suit does not abate. The learned Munsif on a consideration of the matter accepted the contention of the opposite parties and held the suit to have abated. 3. It is not in controversy that the disputed lands are included in the notification issued under section 3 of the Act and the consolidation proceeding in the area is still going on. It is also the admitted position chat no provision has been made in the Act empowering the authorities to grant injunction. The question for consideration is in such circumstances can the existing remedy at common law for which there is a pending action be held to have abated ? This question came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rahas Bewa v. Kanduri Charan Sutar & Others 54 (1982) C.L.T. 143, where the question was answered in the negative. The Division Bench summed up its decision in the following words:- "It becomes difficult for us, therefore, to accept the submission that a suit for permanent injunction pending at common law would stand abated as a result of the notification under the Orissa Act 21 of 1972 even though the relief of injunction is not available under the Act.' 4. In view of the decision of the Division Bench with which I am in respectful agreement, the order of the learned Munsif holding the suit for permanent injunction to have abated is unsustainable and has to be set aside. In view of the decision of the Division Bench with which I am in respectful agreement, the order of the learned Munsif holding the suit for permanent injunction to have abated is unsustainable and has to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision is allowed and the impugned order declaring the suit to have abated is set aside. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit quickly. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 20th of February, 1984, to receive appropriate directions. Final Result : Allowed