Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The appellants assail an order allowing the prayer for restitution made by the respondents. 2. It appears from the lower court records that Title suit No. 136 of 1964 was filed by the appellants in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sasaram against the respondents for declaration of their title to and for recovery of possession over the suit properties. Despite contest it was decreed. Against the decree. First Appeal No. 426 of 1969 was filed in this Court. The appellants put the decree in execution vide Execution case No. 13 of 1969. On 14-3-1970 delivery of possession was also affected in their favour. In the first appeal the respondents filed an application under Sec. 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for passing an order of abatement of the suit as well as the appeal in view of the commencement of consolidation proceedings in regard to the suit lands. This Court on 12-9-1979 held the suit and the appeal, both, as having abated and ordered accordingly. The respondents filed an application under Sec. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit having abated they are entitled to for restitution of their possession of the lands in suit. Their application was registered as Misc. case No. 3 of 1980, heard and allowed by the impugned order by relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Lakhpati Singh V/s. Raghunath Singh and Ors. reported in -- . Submissions: 3. Mr. Keshari Singh learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in support of the appeal, submits as follows: (i) True it is that the suit and appeal both had abated under Sec. 4(c) of the Act in question but the decree of the trial court not having been set aside by this Court there was no question of restitution and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside. (ii) A restitution proceeding is also a civil proceeding and thus it ought to have been held as not maintainable in view of Sec. 4(c) of the Act. (iii) The decision of the Allahabad High Court runs counter to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan Prasad Sah V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. (ii) A restitution proceeding is also a civil proceeding and thus it ought to have been held as not maintainable in view of Sec. 4(c) of the Act. (iii) The decision of the Allahabad High Court runs counter to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan Prasad Sah V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1980 BBCJ 130 (SC) where the Supreme Court has held that the civil proceedings comes to a naught when it abates which means the proceedings halt and of a Division Bench of this Court in (Dr.) Jagdish Prasad alias Jagdish Prasad Gupta V/s. Sardar Satya Narain Singh and Ors. reported in 1982 BBCJ 1 (HC), as well as of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Hirday Ray and Ors. V/s. Gyani Rai and Ors. reported in 1982 BBCJ 260 and should have been relied upon in preference to the Allahabad decision. (iv) In any view of the matter the appellants were successful before the consolidation authorities throughout and their title also declared by them and approved by this Court and even by the apex court by dismissal of the writ petition and the special leave petition filed by the respondents. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in reply, submits that the impugned order has been correctly passed and there is no illegality or impropriety therein which requires to be interfered with in this appeal which is thus liable to be dismissed with costs. Findings: 5. Sec. 4(b) and (c) of the Act runs as follows: (b) no suit or other legal proceeding in respect of any land in such areas shall be entertained in any court, and in calculating period of limitation applicable to such suits and proceedings such period shall not be counted: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any proceeding under Sec. 48(E) of the Tenancy Act, 1985 (Act 8 of 1985) and to the proceedings relating to recording the titles of Bataidars. (e) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings 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 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: Provided that if the State Government empowers any other officer appointed under this Act to dispose of any proceeding relating to survey settlement operations under the provisions of Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (Bihar Act VIII of 1885) or Chapter 12 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Bengal Act 6 of 1908) or Santhal Parganas Settlement Manual, 1872 (Manual 3 of 1872) and transfer such proceeding to such officer for disposal then the proceeding shall not abate or shall not be considered to have been abated: Provided also that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner that may be convenient and after giving them an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in the said suits or proceeding before the appropriate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provision of this Act and the rules made there under: Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette exempt any such proceeding, suit, appeal, reference, or revision or any class of them, if In its opinion their abatement is not in public interest, and not necessary for the purposes of this Act: Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to any proceedings under Sections (44 to 148 of Chapters X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (Bihar Act 28 of 1973), Sec. 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (Act VIII of 1885) and the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Act XII of 1962). 6. 6. True it is that in Sec. 4(b) and (c) the words Civil proceeding have been used but the consistent view of this Court is that these provisions do not apply to execution cases. I am conscious of some observations of this Court in Gobind Prasad V/s. Hriday Thakur and Ors. reported in AIR 1925 Pat 692, opining that execution proceedings are continuation of the suit. It is sufficient for me to point out that in (Dr.) Jagdish Prasads case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Singh the suit in question was for partition in which the right, title and interest of the parties stood determined with the passing of the preliminary decree and goes against his submission if considered to proper perspective. The Legislature never contemplated abatement of some proceedings twice at different stages. Thus I do act find any merit in this argument of Mr. Singh and over rule it. 7. In Satya Narain Prasad Softs case, the Supreme Court observed as follows: True, the petitioner is right in saying that the High Court should not have "nullified" the decree of the trial court but should have merely declared that the proceeding stood abated, which of course, means that the civil proceeding cornea to naught. It is true that the apex court negatived an approach of this Court when it passed an order nullifying the decree but at the same time it held that civil proceeding had come to naught. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary by William Little, Third Edition, describes naught as of no worth or value; good for nothing; worthless; of no legal value, invalid; lost; ruined. Thus I do not agree with Mr. Singh when he interpretates the word naught as half. 8. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Lakhpali Singhs case (supra), considering the same provision in U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and its effect on a proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Civil Procedure, held as follows: Once the suit has abated under law the effect will be that everything done by the Court in that suit will have to be reversed and the patties will have to be put back to the same position in which they were on the date of the institution of the suit. The purpose of Sec. 144, CPC is exactly the same. The purpose of Sec. 144, CPC is exactly the same. Once the suit has abated no party can take advantage or enjoy the benefit of the decree which has been set aside with the abatement of the suit. Proceedings under Sec. 144, CPC follow as a necessary consequence to the abatement of the suit. The order passed by the court below does not thrust suffer from any error of law. No contrary direct decision has been cited by Mr. Singh. The decisions relied upon by him are of no help. I, thus, choose to follow the ratio laid down by the Allahabad High Court and hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. 9 In the interest of justice, as the appellants title has been upheld by the consolidation authorities throughout and affirmed by this Court as well as by the apex court. I clarify that neither the impugned order nor this order of mine should be interpretated to mean that the authority under the Act shall have no jurisdiction to give possession to the appellants as provided under the Act. 10. It is further needless to clarify that after publication of the notification under Sec. 26-A of the Act as laid down by the Full Bench in Ramkrit Singhs case AIR 1979 Pat 250 , it will be open for the appellants to move the executing court in the First Appeal, for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. 11. The appeal is, thus, dismissed with observation as above, however, without costs.