JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against an unreasoned order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, refusing the petition of the defendants (petitioners) u/s 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings 2nd Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 ('Act' for short). 2. The facts of the case may be stated in brief : The plaintift (opposite party) instituted Original Suit No. 98 of 1981 for partition claiming half share in the suit land described in the plaint schedule on 22-4-1981. Even before filing the written statement, the defendants on 1. 9. 1981 filed a petition u/s 4(4) of the Act stating therein that the suit'land is the subject-matter of a case before the Commissioner of Consolidation and so an order for abatement of the suit should be passed. The plaintiff in his counter stated that the consolidation proceeding in relation to the suit land has already terminated and record-of-rights has been published on 1-4-1981. The defendants at no point of time had raised any objection in the consolidation proceeding with regard to the suit land. No case at1 the instance of the defendants is also pending before the Board of Revenue. Therefore, the suit cannot abate. The learned Subordinate judge, by a bald and unreasoned order, rejected the petition. 3. It was not disputed that village Mandal within the jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar PoIice-Station in Puri district, in which the suit land is situate, came under consolidation operation by notificaticn issued by the State Government u/s 3(1) of the Act. It was also not disputed that by issuance of notification dated 5-2-1981 u/s 41( I) of the Act, the State Government declared that the consolidation operation was closed in the above-named village. .Manifestly, therefore, the partition suit, was instituted after closure of the consolidation operation. 4. Mr. A. K. Mohapatra appearing for the defendants placed reliance on Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Act and urged that in view of the pendency of a revision petition before the Commissioner of Consolidation involving the suit land, despite the notification under Sub-section (1) thereof, the consolidation operation shall not be deemed to have been closed in respect of the said case. He cited a decision reported in 1982 All. L. J. 367 ( Lefasa Rai v. Lekhoo Chamar ) in support of his contention. Section 41 of the Act is quoted below for easy reference. "41. He cited a decision reported in 1982 All. L. J. 367 ( Lefasa Rai v. Lekhoo Chamar ) in support of his contention. Section 41 of the Act is quoted below for easy reference. "41. Closure of consolidation operations. (1) As soon as may be after the final maps and records have been prepared u/s 22, the State Government shall issue a notification to the effect that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit and then the village or villages forming part of the unit shall cease to be under the consolidation operations : Provided that the Issue of a notification under this section shali not affect the operation of the provisions contained in Chapter IV, (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section(i), consolidation operations shall not be deemed to have been closed in respect of cases or proceedings pending under the provisions of this Act on the date of issue of notification under Sub-section (1). (3) The orders passed by the competent authorities in matters referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed." According to Sub-section (1), as soon as the consolidation operation is closed in respect of a unit consisting of a village or villages and the final maps and records have been prepared, closure of the consolidation operation shall be notified which shall not, however, affect operation of the provisions contained in Chapter IV. Sub-section (2) provides that although a notification has been made declaring closure of the consolidation operation, yet, if any case or proceeding is pending under the provisions of the Act on the date of the issuance of the notification, then the consolidation operation shall not be deemed to have been closed in respect of the case or proceeding. A( cording to Sub-section (3), orders passed by the competent authorities in such case or proceeding shall be given effect to by such authority as may be prescribed. The prescribed authority, according to Rule 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Rules, is the local Tahasildar who shall act according to Sub-section (3). A( cording to Sub-section (3), orders passed by the competent authorities in such case or proceeding shall be given effect to by such authority as may be prescribed. The prescribed authority, according to Rule 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Rules, is the local Tahasildar who shall act according to Sub-section (3). From the scheme of Section 41, it is manifest that even though the consolidation operation has been closed yet, in respect of cases or proceedings pending before the authorities under the provisions of the Act, it shall be deemed to be alive giving rise to the consequences provided in Section 4. Unless this conclusion is drawn here shall be inconsistent findings leading to inconsistent decrees and orders of two forums, such as, the Civil Court and the consolidation authorities. The above view find? support from the Allahabad decision (supra). It is to be pointed out that Sub-secs, (1)and (2) of Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 is pari materia with Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 41 of the Act. It was held as follows: "The fact that the notification u/s 52 of the Act has been issued will hardly make a difference so far as the present case is concerned for, admittedly, the matter is pending before the consolidation authorities and can be proceeded with by them on account of the provisio/is of Section 52(2) of the Act. This is clear from the plain language of Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act and was so ruled by the Supreme Court in Sheo Nath Singh Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, wherein it is observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of the report that '......despite a notification u/s 52(1) of the Act, closfng consolidation operation' in a village, cases or proceedings pending under the Act on the date of the issue of notification u/s 52(1) will be decided as though consolidation operation had not terminated' and that 'the result is that the parties are not deprived of an appropriate forum for a decision on the merits of the case ...'. 5. Now, coming back to the case, a statement of fact has been made by the defendants in their petition dated 1.9. 5. Now, coming back to the case, a statement of fact has been made by the defendants in their petition dated 1.9. 1981, as well as, in the revision petition to the effect that some proceeding relating to the suit land is pending before the Commissioner of Consolidation. Certified copy of the petition in, Revision Case No. 3031 of 1981 of the Court of Commissioner of Consolidation was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge. It does not, however, appear as to whether the revision case has finally been disposed of or any further proceeding arising out of the same is pending before any other authority, such as, the Board of Revenue. The record-of-rights said to have been published on 1-4-1981 was also not before the learned Subordinate Judge. There was scope for further investigation before recording a finding on the basis of the notification dated 5. 2. 1981 u/s 41(1) of the Act that the suit shall not abate. The materials referred to above are also hot before this Court Therefore, it is not possible to finally dispose of the controversy in the absence of the essential materials. It is, therefore, a fit case in which the learned Subordinate Judge should make a thorough investigation and then arrive at the conclusion as to whether the suit shall abate in view of the provision contained in Sub-section (2) or it shall not abate because of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Act. In order to enable him to do so, the impungned order his to be set aside with a direction for fresh disposal of the defendants' petition dated i. 9 1981 in the light of the observations made in this order. 6. Mr. Mohapatra raised an interesting point with regard to bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court u/s 51(2) of the Act. His point seems to be that, assuming the objection of the plaintiff to the effect that the record-of-rights has been finally prepared in the consolidation operation is correct, then in that case the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to decide the matters enumerated in Sub-section (1) thereof. In order to decide this point, a specific plea of bar of jurisdiction with a statement of facts has to be made in the written statement and an issue to the effect has to be framed. In order to decide this point, a specific plea of bar of jurisdiction with a statement of facts has to be made in the written statement and an issue to the effect has to be framed. But, it appears from the records of the suit that for nearly a year the defendants did ;not file their written statement and applied for repeated adjournments which were liberally granted. For expeditious disposal of suits, it is essential that defendants should present their written statements as early as possible and the Civil Courts should remain vigilant and insist that the defendants should file their written statements without delay. Delay in filing of written statements will entail delay in disposal of suits. Therefore, the defendants are expected to file their written statement within a short time and, if in their written statement they raise the plea of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court u/s 51of the Act and an issue to that effect is raised, the learned Subordinate Judge shall necessarily dispose of the issue and decide the question of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court according to Jaw. At the moment, this point is premature. 7. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. After the record is received, the learned Subordinate Judge shall hear the parties, call for documents and dispose of the defendants' petition according to law. The civil revision is accordingly allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed