KRISHNA MURARI, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20- 7- 2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Ballia whereby he allowed the revision filed by the plaintiff- respondent and set aside the order dated 1-2-1995 passed by the trial Court abating the suit under Section 5 (2) of the U. P Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. The facts in brief are that respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed original suit No. 31 of 1993 seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 3-9-1989 alleged to have been executed in favour of the petitioners by respondent No. 3 and an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in the possession over the land in dispute. On being served with summons, the defendants-petitioners entered appearance in the said suit and moved an application under Section 5 (2) of the Act for abatement of the suit on the ground that the village has been notified for consolidation operation. The trial Court vide order dated 1-2-1995 abated the suit. The contesting respondents filed revision which was allowed by respondent No. 1 and the order of the trial Court was set aside. 3. I have heard Sri S. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 4. There is no dispute between the parties that notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act has been issued with regard to the area where the land in dispute is situated. 5. The question which arises for consideration is whether the suit where relief for cancellation of sale deed of an agricultural land has been claimed is liable to be abated in view of the provision of Section 5 of the Act. 6. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of plaint allegation the sale deed of which cancellation was sought was a void document and hence the suit was liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. The revisional Court had committed a gross illegality in holding otherwise and setting aside the order of the trial Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act provides for cancellation of void as well as voidable documents. The revisional Court had committed a gross illegality in holding otherwise and setting aside the order of the trial Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act provides for cancellation of void as well as voidable documents. Suit claiming relief provided under the Specific Relief Act can only be entertained by a civil Court. Hence a suit claiming relief of cancellation of a document whether void or voidable are not liable to be abated at the onset of the consolidation operation and mischief of Section 5 (2) of the Act does not come into play in such case. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, he has tried to justify the order passed by the revisional Court. 8. The question whether a suit for cancellation of sale deed is liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act came up for consideration before a Division bench of this Court in the case of Jagarnath Shukla v. Sitaram Pandey, reported in 1969 All. W. R 435. The Division Bench held that suit for cancellation of sale deed in respect of an agricultural plot which are pending on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act should be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. This decision did not draw any distinction between void and voidable documents. The import of the decision was a suit for cancellation of an agricultural land whether void or voidable was liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act at the onset of the consolidation operation. 9. The question next came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Gorakh Nath v. H. N. Singh, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2451 . The Apex Court while pointing out the distinction between void and voidable documents held that a document wholly or partially invalid or void can be disregarded by any Court or authority without a decree of cancellation. As such the suit or proceedings wherein the same is under consideration will abate. The Apex Court while pointing out the distinction between void and voidable documents held that a document wholly or partially invalid or void can be disregarded by any Court or authority without a decree of cancellation. As such the suit or proceedings wherein the same is under consideration will abate. It was observed by the Apex Court in the said decision as follows: "we think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any Court or authority and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect. An alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be, to the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An adjudication on the effect of such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in land which are the subject matter of consolidation proceedings. The existence and quantum of rights claimed or denied will have to be declared by the consolidation authorities which would be deemed to be invested with jurisdiction by the necessary implication of their statutory powers to adjudicate upon such rights and interests in land, to declare such documents effective or ineffective, but, where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by setting it aside or its cancellation, it could be urged that the consolidation authorities have no power to cancel the deed, and, therefore, it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a Court having the power to cancel it. In the case before us, the plaintiffs claim is that the sale of his half share by his uncle was invalid, inoperative, and void, such a claim could be adjudicated upon by consolidation Courts. " 10. Even after the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, a controversy arose where the decision rendered in the case Gorakh Nath (supra) decides the question about the application of Section 5 of the Act to the suit filed for cancellation of voidable documents. " 10. Even after the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, a controversy arose where the decision rendered in the case Gorakh Nath (supra) decides the question about the application of Section 5 of the Act to the suit filed for cancellation of voidable documents. A learned Single Judge referred the following two questions for opinion by a Full Bench: " (1) Whether a suit for cancellation of a voidable sale deed relating to an agricultural plot pending in civil Court will abate under Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act after issue of a notification under Section 4 of the Act with respect to that village. (2) If the sale deed relates to a house and also to agricultural plots and the answer to the first point is in the affirmative what will happen to the case in so far it relates to the sale deed of the house. " 11. The Full Bench in the said case of Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, reported in 1976 RD 220, held as under: "a reading of this passage shows that the Supreme Court had not agreed with the decision of this Court in J. N. Shukla v. S. R. Pandes case (1) to the effect that both void and voidable instruments stood at par with reference to Section 5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It had found a distinction between the two types of documents. The void documents, it found, were invalid and were liable to be disregarded by the consolidation authorities. So far as the other class of documents, viz. , the voidable documents was concerned, the observation of the Supreme Court is clearly to the effect that their legal effect can be taken away only by their being cancelled or set aside and that the documents could be cancelled only by a Court having power to cancel them and that the documents remain binding so long as they were not cancelled. It is further clear from the judgment that the consolidation authorities had no power to cancel such documents. It is further clear from the judgment that the consolidation authorities had no power to cancel such documents. These observations of the Supreme Court in our opinion, are sufficient declaration of the law that the documents which are voidable can be cancelled by the Civil Courts only and cannot be cancelled by consolidation authorities and they remain effective till cancelled and liable to be given effect to by consolidation till they are cancelled by a competent Court. In view of this law declared by the Supreme Court there can be no doubt that the suit in respect of cancellation of voidable sale deed will not abate under Section-5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. " 12. Another Full Bench in the case of Ram Padarath & others v. II Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others, reported in 1989 RD 21, while considering the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court and revenue Court has taken the same view. The ratio of the decision of Gorakh Nath (supra) was again reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh and another, reported in 1990 Supp. S. C. C 216. 13. Thus in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gorakh Nath (supra), Dularia Devi (supra) and two Full Bench decisions of this Court (Supra), it is well settled that suit for cancellation of void documents in respect of an agricultural land pending on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act will abate by virtue of Section 5 (2) of the Act. Whereas the suit for cancellation of voidable documents will not abate and will only be cognizable by a civil Court. 14. A bare reading of the plaint makes it evident that according to the plaintiffs the sale deed in question was void. The plaint allegations are, that the plaintiff never executed the sale deed in question nor received any consideration for the same. The defendants got it executed by some impostor fraudulently. Thus according to the plaint allegations, the document in question was a void document. Thus the cancellation of the document was being sought by the plaintiff on the ground that it was a void document. 15. The defendants got it executed by some impostor fraudulently. Thus according to the plaint allegations, the document in question was a void document. Thus the cancellation of the document was being sought by the plaintiff on the ground that it was a void document. 15. According to the settled legal position, such a void sale deed could be ignored by the consolidation authorities and as such the suit in which the same is under consideration is liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment dated 20-7-2000 of the Additional District Judge, Ballia in civil revision No. 28 of 1995, Smt. Jamuni Devi & others v. Sahab & others, is hereby quashed and that of the trial Court dated 1-2-1995 abating the suit is affirmed. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. .