JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This, is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff Jagdish & others against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 7.5.J 985 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the S.D.O. Mariahun, District Jaunpur dated 16.7.1982. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs u/s 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the defendants claiming co-tenancy along with them. The defendants filed a written statement denying the title of plaintiffs. It was also alleged by them that consolidation operations were already going on in the village, hence the suit could not be entertained by the court. The trial court found that the village was still under consolidation operation and it had not been denotified u/s 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, hence the suit was not cognisable and accordingly he dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred against that judgment. It has also dismissed, hence this second appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that even though the consolidation operations were going on, the suit could not have been dismissed and it could have only been ordered to have abated. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that if the suit had already been pending on the date of the Notification u/s 4 C.H. Act then of course suit could have stood abated, but if it was filed during the pendency of the consolidation operation then could have only been dismissed. He drew my attention to Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act which reads as follows:- "49. He drew my attention to Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act which reads as follows:- "49. Bar to civil jurisdiction.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a (notification) has been issued (under subsection (2) of Section 4) or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act". He argued that in view of this section the suit was not entertain able by the trial court. 6. I understand that there is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. A careful reading of Section 49 clearly suggests that revenue courts are precluded from entertaining any suit during the consolidation operations if a remedy can be sought before the consolidation courts. The record shows that consolidation operations were already going on when the present suit was instituted. In such circumstances when a question of title was involved it could be gone into only by the consolidation court and not by the revenue court, during consolidation proceeding. If the suit had already been pending on the date of the Notification u/s 4 of C.H. Act then of course the suit could be ordered to have stood abated as a consequence thereof as provided u/s 5 C.H. Act but when the suit was instituted during the pendency of those proceedings no order could be passed about the abatement of the suit and it could only be ordered to be dismissed as non-cognisable as the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The orders of the trial court and the appellate court are, therefore, perfectly justified and I find no ground to interfere therein. This appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and it is dismissed.