JUDGEMENT 1. I.A. No. 6023 of 2010 This interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of the heirs of petitioner no. 6, namely, Bisheshwar Sah, who is said to have died on 20.11.2008 leaving behind his two sons, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the application. A copy of the interlocutory application was served on the learned counsel on behalf of the appearing respondents on 14.7.2010. However, till date no rejoinder has been filed to the I.A. and no one appears on behalf of the opposite parties to oppose the prayer made in the interlocutory application. 2. Therefore, the interlocutory application is allowed. Let the name of petitioner no. 6 be expunged from the cause title of the civil revision and the heirs, as mentioned in paragraph 1 thereof, be sub- stituted in his place. The heirs have already appeared through learned counsel by filing power alongwith the I.A. 3. In spite of repeated calls, no one appears for the opposite parties. The order-sheet shows that learned counsel of the appearing opposite parties has not been appearing in the case since last many dates. Notices on other opposite parties were validly served but they have not chosen to appear in this case. 4. The impugned order in this civil revision is an order of the court below by which suit of the petitioners has been held to have abated in view of the provisions of Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in earlier consolidation proceeding, the title of the petitioners was declared in respect of the suit property on contest. The orders of the consolidation authorities were not challenged by the opposite parties and, therefore, they attained finality. In spite of that, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure started and possession of some of the opposite parties was declared. Since this had put a cloud on title of petitioners, they filed the instant suit for declaration of their title. The prayer in the suit was, precisely, to declare title of the petitioners and others in terms of the declaration of the consolidation authorities. Therefore, there is no possibility of conflict between the orders passed by the consolidation authorities and the civil court. The prayer in the suit was, precisely, to declare title of the petitioners and others in terms of the declaration of the consolidation authorities. Therefore, there is no possibility of conflict between the orders passed by the consolidation authorities and the civil court. He submits that in fact, the plaintiffs had filed suit only for confirmation of the orders of the consolidation authorities in their favour and for declaration of their title and possession and for declaring the orders passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. as null and void. As said earlier, no one appears on behalf of the opposite parties to oppose this revision application. 6. In the circumstances, this civil revision application is allowed. The order dated 27.4.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-VI, Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 194/92 is set aside and the court below is directed to restate the suit and proceed with it for decision on merits in accordance with law.