JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - In this writ petition plot no. 766 and 16 other plots measuring 5.23 acres are subject matter of dispute between the parties. The petitioner no. 1 was recorded over the disputed plots in the basic year. The contesting opposite parties had claimed exclusive right in the aforesaid plots. All the consolidation authorities have given judgments for the contesting opposite parties regarding disputed plots, subject matter of the present writ petition. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioners in the subject matter of the present writ petition. According to him the claim of the contesting opposite parties was recognised on the basis of an alleged order dated 20th April, 1951 noted in the revenue extracts. It has been stressed that the petitioners applied for setting aside the order dated 20th April, 1951 which was set aside by the Trial Court through its order dated 4-9-1973, but in appeal against the order dated 4-9-1973 further proceedings were stayed through the order dated 25-9-1973. In such a circumstance the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred in giving effect to the order dated 20-4-1951 when in fact that order did not exist. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the claim of the petitioners has been rightly negatived in plot no. 766 and 16 other plots because the contesting opposite parties were held as exclusive tenure-holders of these plots in a suit under section 59/61 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. He has emphasised that stay of further proceedings through the order dated 25-9-1973 would mean that the operation of the order dated 4-9-1973 whereby the order dated 20-4-51 was set aside remained stayed. In such a circumstance the appellate authority and the revisional court have taken correct view and the impugned judgments need not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. 4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 5. In such a circumstance the appellate authority and the revisional court have taken correct view and the impugned judgments need not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. 4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 5. The appellate authority has expressed itself on the relevant question thus : ".......................Atah is nakal se man birta adi ka yeh kathan ki mukadma antargat Dhara 59/61 ke adesh ke bawajud bhi khata sanyukt raha mane yogya nahin hai. Jis wajdayar ka adesh par Manbirta adi vishwas karti hai, us adesh ka anupalan sthagit ho gaya hai. Atah adesh dinank 20-4-51 kayam hai. Is adesh ke kayam rahte huwe kalika adi ka naam gata No. 766 adi par kayam rakhana uchit pratit hota hai." 6. The revisional court has also expressed itself on the relevant question below :- "...............Iske atirikt adesh dinank 20-4-51 ko nirast kanun ke liye prarthana patra tajverj sani diya gaya aur Pargana Adhikari, basra ne 20-4-51 ke adesh ko 4-9-75 ko nirast kiya. Kintu is adesh ko unhone dinank 25-9-73 ko sthagit kar diya aur ayukt mahodaya ne bhi adesh dinank 4-9-73 ke kriyanwayan ko sthagit kar diya. Is prakar jahan tak ki 20-4-51 ke adesh ka sambandh hai woh kayam raha, aur 20-4-51 ke adesh ke kayam rahne se gata No. 766 adi par Kalika ewam anirudh ka hi naam rakhna uchit hai." 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties it transpires that in Revision No. 297 of 1973 Anirudn v. Smt. Manbirta the applicant in revision had prayed that all further proceedings in the case before the lower court in pursuance of the order dated 4-9-1973 be stayed till the decision of the petition for revision and justice be done and the revisional court had passed the order as below :- "Stay as prayed." 8. In the above circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that the operation of the order dated 4-9-1973 was not stayed as a whole, only further proceedings were stayed, but the counsel for the opposite parties has emphasised that the operation of the order dated 4-9-73 was stayed by the revisional court. Therefore the appellate authority and the revisional court during the consolidation operations had taken correct view in giving effect to the order dated 20-4-51 in favour of the contesting opposite parties in the suit under Section 59/61 of U.P. Tenancy Act. 9. Therefore the appellate authority and the revisional court during the consolidation operations had taken correct view in giving effect to the order dated 20-4-51 in favour of the contesting opposite parties in the suit under Section 59/61 of U.P. Tenancy Act. 9. To my mind in the absence of a clear and specific order staying operation of the order dated 4-9-73 the effect of the order dated 20-4-51 could not be accepted at its lace value especially when it has been found by trial court that there was no file concerning the suit under Section 59/61 of U.P. Tenancy Act and that the relevant order dated 20-4-51 was not available and traceable, therefore, the same was set aside through the order dated 4-9-73. 10. It is also note-worthy that when an ex-parte order is set aside, the suit revives and because of the provisions of Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act an authority should abate the suit together with proceedings pending before it. I am conscious that where an application for setting aside the ex-parte order is challenged and the application is rejected, the merits of the controversy between the parties can be gone into in appeal or revisions against the order in miscellaneous proceedings, but a controversy has arisen in this State that when ex-parte order is set aside in a miscellaneous proceeding and the order setting aside the ex-parte decree is challenged before higher authority and the consolidation starts, what should be the proper order regarding the proceedings and the suit which becomes revived in case of ex-parte decree having been set aside. In a case I have indicated that when ex-parte decree is set aside and appeal or revision against that order is pending before the higher authority and the consolidation starts in the village the proceedings together with suit should be abated, the higher authority had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the claim as to whether the ex-parte decree was rightly set aside or wrongly set aside. Therefore, it is to be examined in the present case as to whether the operation of the order dated 4-9-1973 was really staged or could legally be stayed in the circumstances of the present case. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the revisional court while upholding the claim of the contesting opposite parties. 11. Therefore, it is to be examined in the present case as to whether the operation of the order dated 4-9-1973 was really staged or could legally be stayed in the circumstances of the present case. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the revisional court while upholding the claim of the contesting opposite parties. 11. I have already indicated above that due to stay order on 25-9-1973, only further proceeding before the Trial court was stayed and not the operation of the order dated 4-9-1973, I think that the revisional court has patently erred in holding that the order dated 20th April, 1951 in favour of the contesting opposite parties became operative especially when the Trial court in its order dated 4-9-1973 has indicated that there was no file or order available and traceable which may justify the entries in the revenue extracts and the entries in the revenue extracts were held as invalid. 12. Since the order of the revisional court appears to me patently erroneous in the circumstances mentioned above and the revisional court has failed to consider an important aspect as to whether the proceedings against the order dated 4-9-1973 together with the suit under Section 59/61 of the U.P. Tenancy Act should stand abated under the provisions of Section 5 of the U.P. C. H. Act. I think the impugned order of the revisional court suffers from patent errors of law and deserves to be quashed. 13. In the result the writ petition succeeds and impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 20-10-74 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties in the light of the discussions above. There would be no order as to costs.