Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The plaintiffs are the petitioners before this Court against an order passed in terms of Section 4C of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") ordering abatement of the suit. Defendant-opposite party No. 1 has died and as his heirs are on record, his name is expunged. Rest of the defendants-opposite parties have appeared and have supported the impugned order submitting that as per the plaint, the plaintiffs-petitioners had claimed that the document in question was void and nullity and on such pleading, the case would be covered by 1980 BLJR 14 [: 1979 PLJR 567] and the matter would abate. 3. In my view, the provisions of Section 4C of the Act clearly contemplate that once consolidation proceedings are initiated then no civil suit in relation to land covered by the said notification can be instituted or carried on till the proceedings are closed by notification in terms of Section 26A of the Act. It, thus, follows that land related disputes during pendency of consolidation proceedings would now be taken up by consolidation authorities. Earlier, judgments have noted the dichotomy arising from such a general proposition. The consolidation authorities, not being Court, lacked the power to call a document and to cancel the same. Thus, the line of cases developed pointing out the distinctions between cases in which land documents are said to be void and those which are voidable. In cases where a document is alleged to be void on the facts as pleaded then a mere declaration is required which was found to be within competence of the consolidation authorities and, as such, the suits in which such a question arose were deemed to be abated. But in those cases where the documents were to be delivered and cancelled by the Court, being cases where on the facts it was pleaded that the document was voidable were cases beyond the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities and exclusively within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts duly constituted. Those cases would not abate in terms of Section 4C of the Act. A document is generally stated to be void where there is an inherent lack of one of the essential ingredients of a contract. Those cases would not abate in terms of Section 4C of the Act. A document is generally stated to be void where there is an inherent lack of one of the essential ingredients of a contract. A lack of competence to execute, the object being unlawful and against public policy, the agreement for restraint of trade are such examples which the law of contract itself stipulates renders a contract, sale deed being in the nature of contract, void but where a deed would otherwise be valid until and unless avoided by a party or a party claiming thereunder such deeds, contracts are voidable. They are valid till avoided. 4. Keeping this distinction in mind if the pleadings in the present suit are looked, the pleadings are that the deed of gift in question is voidable. It is pleaded that it has to be declared void for it has been got executed fraudulently. If this deed of gift was not challenged then it would be valid for all purposes. It is only consequent to a challenge and after calling for the same and declaring it void that it looses its legal sanctity. In other words, the said deed is valid till it is declared void. This plea clearly shows that the documents is valid till steps are being taken to avoid the same. 5. In view of the aforesaid finding of this Court that the document is voidable, suit is maintainable and will not abate in terms of Section 4C of the Act. Thus, the Court below has committed a clear error of jurisdiction in holding that the suit would abate. The impugned order is set aside and this application is allowed.