(1) LEAVE granted. (2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) THE suit of the appellant filed in the civil court has been held to be debarred on account of Section 36-A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court did not consider (he provisions contained in Section 36-B of the said Act which is reproduced below: "36-B. Suits involving issues required to be decided under this Act. (1) If any suit instituted in any civil court or Mamlatdars Court involves any issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any authority competent to settle, decide or deal with such issues under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the competent authority) the civil court or Mamlatdars Court shall stay the suit and refer such issues to such competent authority for determination. (2) On receipt of such reference from the civil court or Mamlatdars Court, the competent authority shall deal with and decide such issues in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall communicate its decision to the civil court or Mamlatdars Court and such court shall thereupon dispose of the suit in accordance with the procedure applicable thereto." (4) UNDER Section 36-B, if a suit instituted in any civil court involves an issue which is required to be decided and dealt with by any authority under the aforesaid Act, the proceeding in the civil court shall be stayed and that issue shall be referred to the appropriate authority for determination. On receipt of the finding from the authority to which a reference is made, the civil court is required to dispose of the same in accordance with the procedure applicable thereto. (5) THE appellant had admittedly filed the suit for declaration claiming ownership rights over the plot in question which were denied by the respondent. The civil court had decreed the suit. In appeal, the District Judge held that the civil court had no jurisdiction over the matter which was upheld by the High Court. (6) FROM the nature of pleadings of the parties, it appears that the question of ownership could have been decided only on a reference made by the civil court to the authority under the said Act. In appeal, the District Judge held that the civil court had no jurisdiction over the matter which was upheld by the High Court. (6) FROM the nature of pleadings of the parties, it appears that the question of ownership could have been decided only on a reference made by the civil court to the authority under the said Act. It cannot be ignored that the civil court had recorded a finding that notice of the consolidation proceedings was not issued to the appellant. That being so, what was required to be considered was whether the proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities were taken after due compliance with the provisions set out in the Act. If those provisions were ignored and were not complied with by the Consolidation Authorities, whether a suit could be filed or not had to be considered by the District Judge as also by the High Court. (7) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed. The orders of the District Judge as also of the High Court are set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Judge to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law.