JUDGMENT : M.L. Bhat, J. This is an appeal filed by the Defendant against the judgment dated. 16-9-1991 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, whereby, he has remanded the case to the Munsif, Allahabad for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law after setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif. 2. The Munsif, Allahabad seems to have dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff-Respondents by deciding issue. No. 5. The said issue was, about the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. The Trial Court was of the view that under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit which was triable by the authorities under the Provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act of 1953, therefore, suit was dismissed. On appeal District Judge set aside the judgment of the Munsif and held otherwise. The learned Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that the suit was barred by the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act, therefore, it could not be remanded for re-trial to the Munsif. It is contended that at the time of the institution of the suit and at the time of passing of the judgment notification u/s 4(2) of the Consolidation Act, had been issued and the area where the land is situate had come within the purview of the said Act, therefore, Civil Court's jurisdiction to try any suit with regard to the land had ceased. The Consolidation operations were started therefore, u/s 5 (2) certain consequences would have ensued with regard to the pending proceedings in any Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Section 5 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which reads as under. The Consolidation operations were started therefore, u/s 5 (2) certain consequences would have ensued with regard to the pending proceedings in any Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Section 5 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which reads as under. Upon the said publication' of the notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 the following further consequences shall ensure in the area to which the notification relates, namely: (a) every proceeding 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 stands abated. 3. He has also relied on Smt. Barsatiya v. District Judge, Ghazipur 1984 ALJ 490. This Court has held that pending suit for injunction abates because suit for injunction also fnvdlves declaration of rights and title for the land in suit, therefore, Section 5(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act would bar the trial of the suit in Civil Court. Reliance is also placed on Smt. Dulari Devi v. Janardaa Singh 1990 RD 193 (SC), A suit to set aside the sale deed was also held to be barred u/s 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In Sita Ram v. Chhota Bhondey 1990 RD 493 (SC). It was held that a suit in which Respondents had claimed interest in the land lying in area covered by notification u/s 4 (2) was held to be covered by Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred by the Act. 4. Section 49 of the Consolidation Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try a suit for declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a notification has been issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the authorities who were functioning under the Consolidation Act had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the authorities who were functioning under the Consolidation Act had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction. Relief of injunction could be granted only by the Civil Court, Civil Court loses jurisdiction only in such cases which are cognizable by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. If a matter is not cognizable by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Act then Civil Court's jurisdiction is not affected. It was submitted that suit could not be dismissed by the Trial Court. It could only be abated so that after the consolidation operations is over proceedings could be revived. 6. In the present suit relief for injunction is claimed but for granting the relief Court has necessarily to give a declaration about the title and interest of the Respondent-Plaintiffs in respect of the land lying in the area where consolidation proceedings had commenced. Therefore, the suit was cognizable by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and they alone could give declaration with respect to right and title of the Plaintiffs. Even a suit for setting aside the sale deed in respect of the land lying in the area where consolidation proceedings are operative was held to be cognizable by the authorities under the Consolidation Act. Civil Court's jurisdiction in respect of such suit was also held to be barred by virtue of Section 49 of the Act. 7. The suit for injunction where title and right is required to be considered would not be cognizable by a Civil Court in respect of a land which falls in an area where the consolidation proceedings are operative. 8. However, learned Counsel for the Respondent was right in saying that suit could not be dismissed, it could be abated u/s 5 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was not necessary for the Defendant to state as to why suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court. It was sufficient if he had said in the written statement that the area had come within the purview of Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred to try the suit. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Appellate Court to send the case back for re-trial With regard to issue No. 5 which pertained to the jurisdiction of the Court below. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Appellate Court to send the case back for re-trial With regard to issue No. 5 which pertained to the jurisdiction of the Court below. On going through the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court it appears that it has taken a view which cannot be supported by law. Therefore, remand of the case in such a case is absolutely unnecessary when on the face of it Civil Court has lost its jurisdiction to try the suit because of the operation of the consolidation proceedings in the area where the land is lying. Therefore, the order of remand is liable to be set aside. 9. For the aforesaid discussions, I allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Ist Appellate Court dated 16-9-1991 and maintain the judgment of the Trial Court with modification that suit shall be deemed to have abated and not dismissed as recorded by the Trial Court in its judgment. No order as to costs.