Order The plaintiff is the petitioner in this civil revision application, who has challenged the order dated 8.6.92, passed by the learned Munsif, whereby he has allowed the suit to abate in terms of Section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant suit is a pure suit for injunction, which will not abate in terms of the provision of the Consolidation Act. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the copy of the plaint, wherefrom it appears that the instant suit is a pure suit for permanent injunction and, as such, in my view, the suit will not abate under Section 4 (c) of the Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order under challenge. In my view, the court below has wrongly and illegally allowed the suit to abate. Accordingly the order dated 6.2.92 is set aside and consequently this civil revision application is allowed. No costs.