JUDGMENT 1. The learned senior counsel for the appellants in this appeal has been heard on merits on 29.11.2012. When the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent no.1 was called upon to make his submission, he pointed out that a petition (I.A. No. 7819 of 2012) had been filed on that date i.e. 29.11.2012 praying therein that the entire appeal had abated under Section 4 (1) (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The matter was adjourned on the prayer of the learned senior counsel for the appellants who sought adjournment to seek instruction in the matter and file reply, if so advised. This appeal has been, thus, placed today alongwith I.A. No. 7819 of 2012. 2. Mr. Shivnandan Rai, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, no. 1 has pressed the prayer made in I.A. No. 7819 of 2012 that the suit and the appeal be held to have abated under Section 4 (1) (c) of the Act. Mr. Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the respondent no. 1 in the said interlocutory application and has only submitted that the order should be passed in consonance with the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mst. Bibi Rahmani Khatoon Vs. Harkoo Gope A.I.R. 1981 SC 1450. 3. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has considered the ambit and scope of the provision of Section 3 and 4 of the Act and has held in paragraph-12 as follows:- “……Accordingly, both on principle and precedent it is crystal clear that where a notification is issued bringing the land involved in a dispute in the civil proceeding under a scheme of consolidation, the proceedings pending in the civil court either in the trial court, appeal or revision, shall abate as a consequence ensuing upon the issue of a notification and the effect of abatement would be that the civil proceeding as a whole would come to a naught….” 4. Mr. Sharma, has pointed out that the similar view has earlier been also expressed in the case of Satyanarayan Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 2051. 5. Mr. Sharma, has pointed out that the similar view has earlier been also expressed in the case of Satyanarayan Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 2051. 5. In view of the stand taken by the learned senior counsel for both the parties, the prayer made in that interlocutory application is allowed and it is held that the suit as well as this appeal has abated under the provision of Section 4 (1) (c) of the Act. 6. It is made clear that this order has been made with the consent of the parties and there is no adjudication on merits of any assertion made in the interlocutory application. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed as abated.