JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - A short but interesting question that falls for determination in this application u/s 115 of the CPC (for short 'the Code') is as to whether the provision of Section 144 of the Code will apply to a case where the decree stands vacated by virtue of the provision of 'abatement of the suit' in a later legislation. 2. The facts may be briefly noticed ; A possessory decree was passed in favour of the Plaintiff in the year 1972 which was affirmed in, appeal, and thereafter on 16-5-1976 delivery of possession of the land was also effected in favour of the Plaintiff-decree holder. Second Appeal No. 130 of 1976 had been filed in the' meantime. On 4-2-1980 when the second appeal was taken up by this Court the learned Judge taking note of Section 4 (4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, passed the following orders: Admittedly the properties involved in this case belong to Mouza Haladi. P. S. Sonepur in the district of Bolangir and the suit is for declaration title and recovery of possession. By notification No. SRO. 764/78 dated 27th. June, 1978, published in the Extraordinary Issue of the Orissa Gazette dated July 3rd of 1978, issued u/s 3 (1) of the. Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (Orissa Act 21 of 1972) this Mouza. Haladi, has been notified as item No. 39. By virtue of Section 4 (4) of the aforesaid Act, the appeal and the suit shall stand abated and, as such, the appeal and the suit have abated. Accordingly, the judgment of the courts below are vacated. It will be useful to extract hereunder Section 4 (4) of the Act: Section 4. Effect of notification-Upon the publication of the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 in the official gazette, the consequences as hereinafter setforth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, ensue in the consolidation area till the publication of notification u/s 41 or Sub-section (1) of Section 5 as the case may be,- (1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) every suit and proceedings for declaration of any right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area in regard to which proceedings could be or ought to be started under this Act, which is pending before any Civil Court, whether of the first instance or appeal, reference or revision shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court before which such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated; xxx xxx xxx After the aforesaid order was passed, an application u/s 144 of the Code was filed in the trial Court by the Defendants on 16-9-1980 for restoration of the suit land. The trial Court by its order dated 21-11-1981 disallowed the said application but in appeal, the Subordinate Judge by the impugned order dated 8-3-1984 allowed the same. The Plaintiff-decree holder has, therefore, come in revision. 3. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the decree in favour of the Petitioner had not been set aside on the ground that it was erroneous and, therefore, it could not be said that the Petitioner had received any benefit under any erroneous judgment and decree within the meaning of Section 144 of the Code. He also referred to a decision of this Court in Banchhanidhi Das v. Bhanu Sahuani and Ors. ILR 1973 Cutt. 498. 4. The submission raised on behalf of the Petitioner is, entirely misdirected and erroneous. The intention of the Legislature by providing u/s 144 is that no party should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of a decree which does not exist in the eye of law having been set aside. The effect of abatement of a suit under any legal fiction would be of the same inasmuch as the parties are relegated to the position in which they were on the date of institution of the suit. The order of abatement recorded by this Court in the second appeal quoted above in no uncertain term said that the suit stood abated. If the suit itself stands abated then obviously the judgment and decree passed therein stands automatically obliterated and non-existent for all purposes. In that view of the matter, the benefit that the decree holder derived by virtue of the decree through the executing Court cannot be all owed to continue. If the suit itself stands abated then obviously the judgment and decree passed therein stands automatically obliterated and non-existent for all purposes. In that view of the matter, the benefit that the decree holder derived by virtue of the decree through the executing Court cannot be all owed to continue. I find full support for this preposition from two Bench decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Vindhyachal Tewari v. Board of Revenue and Ors. and Lakhpati Singh v. Raghunath Singh and Ors., where under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act respectively, the suits stood abated and the principle of Section 144 of the Code was applied. In one of the cases it was observed that "A decree or order may be varied in appeal or in revision, or in some other proceedings. It may be varied or reversed in a separate suit. It may be varied or reversed by subsequent legislation. An abatement of a suit or proceedings had the effect of nullifying the entire suit or proceedings and all orders and decrees passed in those proceedings. The 'abatement, therefore, had the effect of reversing the decree or orders so passed. I find myself in full agreement with the above view expressed by the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court. 5. From the above discussions, this application must fail and is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, I shall make no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed