JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - By means of this application under Section 151 C.P.C. the appellants seek recall of an order dated 20th July, 1983 by which the second Appeal No. 2227 of 1982 was dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. and for a further order that the suit and appeal be abated under See. 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. The ground for seeking recall of the dismissal order is that prior to the filing of appeal fresh consolidation proceedings had started and notification under Section 4-A of the Act had been issued on 27th June, 1981. It may be relevant to mention here that the trial court had dismissed the suit on 30th August 1980 and the appeal was decided by the court below on 12.5.1982. In fact it was during the pendency of the appeal in the court below that a notification under Section 4-A of the Act been issued which, according to the appellant, was not within his knowledge and this fact would not be brought to the notice either of the court below or of this court at the time when the appeal was listed for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. 3. The respondent has put in appearance and contested the application and Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently urged that the fact of consolidation was very much within the knowledge of the appellant and also that even on merits the suit or appeal cannot be abated. In view of the rival stands taken by the parties I propose to deal with this application under Section 151 C.P.C. as well as the question of abatement together. 4. It has not been seriously disputed that in case the suit ought to have been abated in view of notification under Section 4-A of the Act order dismissing the appeal at the admission stage would not be proper for this court to recall its order dated 20-7-1983 and direct that the suitable abated so that the parties may agitate their rights into consolidation proceedings. What is, however, mainly contested is that in this case question, of abatement cannot arise According to Sri Sankatha Rai the land which was claimed by the plaintiff as his sehan land, after its vesting in him under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.P. Act was in fact bhumidhari land of the respondent as held by the courts below. In fact, according to him, the case of the defendant respondent was that the land in dispute formed part of his bhumidhari plot No. 17 and the plaintiff also does not claim any interest in plot No. 17 which is admittedly the bhumidhari land of the respondent. The question that needed determination in the suit was as to whether the and claimed by the plaintiff as his sehan land would form part of plot No. 17 or not. After survey the court below has already found that he part of land in dispute lay in plot No. 17 and for the rests the suit stands decreed. 5. On the other hand, Sri U.K. Misra, learned counsel for the applicant has stressed that the question whether any portion of the land claimed by the plaintiff formed part of plot No. 17 or not cannot be looked into at this stage. For the purposes of abatement what is to be looked into is the pleadings of parties and the question raised therein. If a question has been raised regarding bhumidhari rights in the land in dispute the matter would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Consolidation Court and an order to enable such proceedings to be taken civil suit must be ordered to be abated otherwise the findings recorded by the civil court so far are likely to prejudice the rights of the parties. 6. In order to examine the rival contention it would be proper to extract Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act here : Sec. 5(2) Upon the said publication of the notification under subsection (2) of the Section 4, the following further consequence shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates namely. Explanation : For the purposes of sub-section (2) a proceeding under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings. Explanation : For the purposes of sub-section (2) a proceeding under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings. Act, 1960 or an uncontested proceeding under section 134 to 137, of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shall not be deemed to be a proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest, in any land- (a) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit proceeding stand abated ; Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard : Provided further that on the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereafter every such order in relation to the laud lying in such area or part as the case may be, shall stand vacated ; (b) Such abatement shall be without prejudice to the right of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder." Before these provisions can apply the following three conditions must be satisfied : (1) That there should be a suit or proceeding. (2) This should be in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land in the area, and (3) or proceedings for declaration or adjudication of any other right; 7. On the allegations made in the plaint the suit was cognisable by the civil court only. It was on account of the pleas raised in the written statement that a question about the land or a part thereof being bhumidhari of the defendant respondent was raised. An issue on this question was also framed. On the allegations made in the plaint the suit was cognisable by the civil court only. It was on account of the pleas raised in the written statement that a question about the land or a part thereof being bhumidhari of the defendant respondent was raised. An issue on this question was also framed. In these circumstances the question for determination is whether a question "in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land in the area" was involved in the suit. The term in respect of is of a wider import and even if a declaration as such to any right or interest in the land has already been claimed by the plaintiff but arises on account of the pleadings of the parties it will render the dispute in the suit as one in respect of such declaration of right or interest. The learned counsel has referred to a decision of the learned single Judge in Nishor v. Suddhistha, 1984 ALJ 762. In that case the facts were that the plaintiff claimed the disputed land lying in front of his house as his sehan land since some of the defendants had made transfer of this land in favour of another set of defendants : hence a suit for cancellation of the deed and for perpetual injunction was filed. The defendant resisted, the claim refuting the plaint allegations asserting that the transferor had become a bhumidhar of the land on the date of vesting and had validly transferred the same. In appeal it was urged that the matter was heard and decided in consolidation proceedings where the land in question was held to be bhumidhari of the defendants. The defendant resisted, the claim refuting the plaint allegations asserting that the transferor had become a bhumidhar of the land on the date of vesting and had validly transferred the same. In appeal it was urged that the matter was heard and decided in consolidation proceedings where the land in question was held to be bhumidhari of the defendants. This argument was countered by the plaintiff on the ground that at the time when consolidation proceedings were pending his suit had already been decreed by the civil court holding the land to be his sehan land and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to participate in consolidation proceedings and any decision given by that court would not be binding under Section 49 of that Act, it was in these circumstances that the learned single Judge took the view that the consolidation authorities will have the jurisdiction to decide whether the land constitutes a grove and is held as a bhumidhari of the defendant appellants or as to whether the same has the character of sehan situate in abadi as asserted by the plaintiff respondent". In case they found that the land is sehan the consolidation authorities could not adjudicate as to whom does it belong, but in case the finding was that this constitutes a grove the consolidation authorities would certainly adjudicate the rights, title or interest over the said land whether the defendant-appellant are not Bhumidhari thereof". 8. The basis of the above findings was the fact that even according to the plaintiff in that case, transfer made in favour of the contesting respondent was unauthorised and void. The court took the view that since the sale deed was claimed to be void the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction to look into that matter. In my opinion the case does not offer any assistance to the point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. Apart from above, in that case there was no dispute as to the identity of the land but only about its nature as to whether it was sehan land or was grove land. In the present case the dispute that has been raised by the defendant was that the land constitute part of plot No. 17 of which the defendant was a bhumidhar and admittedly the plaintiff also did not lay any claim in respect thereof. In the present case the dispute that has been raised by the defendant was that the land constitute part of plot No. 17 of which the defendant was a bhumidhar and admittedly the plaintiff also did not lay any claim in respect thereof. In substance the controversy involved in the suit was as to whether the whole or any part of the land in dispute was part of plot No. 17 or whole of it was sehan of the plaintiff. The courts below having come to this conclusion after survey that the land was only in part outside plot No. 17 there can be no question of abatement of the suit. Though it may be true that under Section 5 (2) of the Act it may be said to be a controversy raised in the suit which is to be looked into in order to determine whether the suit ought to be abated or not yet for doing so the court should also look into this question as to which is that part of the land about which that controversy arises. Pleadings in this case are woefully vague and it is only after the evidence had been recorded that clear picture of the controversy emerged. Even the finding given by the court shows that a portion of the disputed land lies outside the limits of plot No. 17. Thus it would not be correct to say that the entire suit would abate. At best the suit can be deemed to have abated and in respect of the area which comes within the purview of the consolidation authorities and to that extent the parties are still free to agitate the matter. The civil court decision can only bind the parties in respect of that portion of the disputed land which has been held to be the sehan land of the appellant. 10. In view of the above; despite issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act the suit could not have abated and the order dismissing the appeal dated 20-7-1983 cannot be recalled. Learned counsel for the parties admit that the matter is already engaging the attention of the consolidation authorities and I have no doubt that the parties will have an opportunity to agitate their respective rights there. 11. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. There will be no order as costs.