JUDGMENT 1. In revision nos. 24 and 25 of 1983-84, district Suitanpur, Gauri Shanker v. Bachchan, arising out of an application moved under Rule 13 of Order IX C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte order and decree passed by the trial court on 14-8-57 in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951, the learned Member of this Court, Sri Kaushal Kishore, referred the following question to be answered by this larger Bench :- "Whether the notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act issued after an ex parte decree in a declaratory suit will have any effect or not, on the maintainability of application for setting aside the ex parte decree, filed after such notification?" 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties on this point. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed after the consolidation proceedings had started in the village and, hence, in view of the decision in the case of "Deota v. Ishwar Dutta" as reported in 1977 R.D. 210, in which reliance was placed on a decision reported in 1968 R.D. 423, such an application was not maintainable. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that there was no provision of law under which an application moved under Rule 13 of Order IX C.P.C. could not be entertained after the issue of a notification under Section 4(2) of the C.H. Act, as an application for restoration was not a suit which could abate on issue of a notification under Section 4(2) C.H Act. For this, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a larger Bench of this Court in "Mahabir v. Mangal" as reported in 1981 UPRJ 210. 5. For this, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a larger Bench of this Court in "Mahabir v. Mangal" as reported in 1981 UPRJ 210. 5. Section 5(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 reads as under :- "5(2) Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4, the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely- (a) every proceedings for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration 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 or proceeding is pending, stand abated." 6. In a decision reported in 1982 R.D. 129, a larger Bench of this Court held that a revision or a reference in respect of an application for setting aside an ex-parte decree or for restoring the suit will not abate as it was neither a suit nor continuation of a suit. In this decision the Bench also considered the decisions reported in AWR 1971 p. 10, 1564 R.D. 197, 1968 R.D. 423 and 1973 R.D. 433 and the Bench was in agreement with the views expressed in the said decisions. The Bench in its view was supported by the view expressed by Hon'ble Justice R.B. Misra while deciding a writ petition no. 7480 of 1974 "Paras Nath Singh v. Gaon Sabha" (decided on October 18, 1979). In that decision, the Hon'ble Judge quashed the order in the case reported in 1975 R.D. 32, and held- "By now it is well settled that an application for restoration is not covered by Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation off Holdings Act and therefore, it cannot be abated under Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and, if that be the position, the revision arising out of restoration proceedings cannot also be abated." This view expressed by the Hon'ble Judge sets at rest all the disputes raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party. 7. 7. In 1977 R.D. 290, a learned Member of this Court, Sri H.N. Agrawal was of the view that an application for restoration filed after the notification of Section 4(2) U.P.C.H. Act could not be entertained. The learned Member was of the view that the Addl. S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for restoration after notification of the village under Section 4(2) C.H. Act and he had no authority to allow restoration after issue of such notification. We do not find any law which prohibits moving of an application for setting aside an ex parte decree after issue of notification under Section 4(2) C.H. Act. No such distinction could be provided. It depends upon an applicant to move an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree either before the notification under Section 4(2) C.H. Act or after such notification. It will be for the court concerned to deal with the application in accordance with the provisions of law on merits. Since an application for restoration is neither a suit nor continuation of a suit and that does not involve any decision in respect of rights or title of the parties, hence, it is not governed by the provisions contained in Section 5(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. 8. Consequently, our answer to the question referred to by the learned single Member Sri Kaushal Kishore is that an application for setting aside an ex parte decree is maintainable even if it is filed after notification under Section 4(2) U.P.C.H. Act has been issued. The court concerned before which an application is moved has to decide that application on merits and the application is not liable to be abated under Section 5(2) (a) of the U.P.C.H. Act. 9. Revision nos. 24 and 25 of 1983-84, district Sultanpur will now be put up before the learned Member having jurisdiction for disposal on merits.