( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-11-1996 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dismissing the revision filed by the appellant herein summarily. The Government of Bihar issued a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") declaring its intention to bring a certain specified area under the consolidation operations. The said notification was issued as far back as 26-11-1970. The said notification also included the area falling within the limits of Hajipur, which was to be brought under the consolidation operations. It is alleged by the appellant that the area falling within the limits of Hajipur included the plots of land situated in Village Purba, Thana No. 109, Anchal hajipur, District Vaishali, Village Kuari, Khurd Thana and Anchal Hajipur, district Vaishali, Thana No. 106, Village Ghospur, Izra Thana and Anchal hajipur, Thana No. 51, District Vaishali, Village Molana Chak, Thana No. 108, Anchal Hajipur, District Vaishali and Mauza Janjira Ismailpur, PS No. 32, Anchal Hajipur, District Vaishali. It is alleged by the appellant that during consolidation proceedings a dispute between the appellant and the respondents arose in respect of the abovementioned plots of land. It is also alleged by the appellant that he filed an objection before the Consolidation officer and the same was decided in his favour and since no appeal was filed by the respondents, it attained finality. While the consolidation proceedings in the village were in operation, the respondents herein filed a suit for partition before the Vth Sub-Judge, Vaishali, Hajipur. The said suit was originally numbered as Partition Suit No. 100 of 1994. It is alleged by the appellant that in the said suit the plots of land mentioned above are also the subject-matter of partition. While the partition suit was proceeding, the appellant herein, who was arrayed as the defendant in the suit, filed an application contending that the suit has abated in view of the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act. It was also contended that the dispute relating to the aforesaid plots of land has already been adjudicated upon in the consolidation proceeding and has attained finality and, therefore, cannot be readjudicated by the civil court in view of Section 37 of the Act. It was also contended that the dispute relating to the aforesaid plots of land has already been adjudicated upon in the consolidation proceeding and has attained finality and, therefore, cannot be readjudicated by the civil court in view of Section 37 of the Act. The said application of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act was not plotwise. Against the said order of learned Sub-Judge, the appellant filed a revision before the High Court which was dismissed by a non-speaking order. It is in this way the appellant is in appeal before us. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant urged that since the proceeding under the Act has attained finality, it is, therefore, not open to the civil court to proceed with the partition suit. His further argument is that the suit has abated in view of the consolidation proceedings. Mr Mishra, who appears on behalf of the respondents disputed the contentions of the appellants counsel. His argument is that the notification dated 26-11-1970 was partially cancelled by another notification dated 27-7-1998 and the result of such cancellation is that the area where the plots in dispute are situated has gone out of the consolidation proceeding and, therefore, it is open to the civil court to proceed with the suit. His further argument is that in view of Section 15 of the Act, there is no final abatement of the suit and in fact only the proceeding in the suit is to abate temporarily till the matter is pending before the Consolidation Courts. ( 4 ) IN this case there are factual disputes. Before the trial court the notifications dated 26-11-1970 and 27-7-1998 were not filed. It was not stated which were the plots of land in dispute in the consolidation proceedings. The judgments of the Consolidation Courts were also not on record. In the absence of the aforesaid facts and materials the dispute could not have been adjudicated. We also do not get any assistance from the judgment of the High Court which is a non-speaking order. Time and again this Court has indicated that the High Courts while dismissing the writ petitions are required to record reasons. In the absence of relevant materials it is not possible for us to decide this appeal on merits. We also do not get any assistance from the judgment of the High Court which is a non-speaking order. Time and again this Court has indicated that the High Courts while dismissing the writ petitions are required to record reasons. In the absence of relevant materials it is not possible for us to decide this appeal on merits. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under challenge and send the case back to the High Court for deciding the same on merits by giving a reasoned order. It will be open to the parties to file fresh affidavits annexing therewith relevant materials and raise such other grounds as may be available to them under law. ( 5 ) THE appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.