JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri D.P. Dwidevi, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel, for State of U.P. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, dated 31.07.2015, calling for lower court record and granting interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo, in the revision filed by respondent-2 under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 3. Thakur Ram Janki Ji, Virajman Mandir, Shri Sita Ram, mohalla Ram Ghat, Ayodhya through its Sarvarakar Mahant Ram Udar Das (now represented by petitioner-2) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 7/571/1096), under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950, for declaring him as bhumidhar of plots 525-Ka (area 8 biswa) and 525-Kha (area 13 biswa) of village Majha Barehata pargana Haveli Awadh, district Faizabad, impleading Raghubar Das (now represented by respondent-2) as defendant-1. It has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had purchased plot 525-Ka (area 8 biswa) from Miss Murial Guzar and R.K. Guzar (defendants-2 and 3) through sale deed dated 22.11.1965, who were its sirdar and obtained bhumidhar certificate after depositing requisite amount of land revenue on 28.07.1965. The plaintiff purchased plot 525-Kha (area 13 biswa) from Ram Lakhan and Mata Badal (defendants-4 and 5) through sale deed dated 23.01.1965, who were its sirdar and obtained bhumidhar certificate after depositing requisite amount of land revenue on 13.01.1965. Raghubar Das (defendant-1) has no interest in it. By coming forgery he got his name recorded over the land in dispute. On these allegations, suit for declaration was filed. 4. It appears that the dispute was referred to Arbitrator Sri Nritya Gopal Das. Before whom it was agreed between the parties that Raghubar Das was sirdar of the land in dispute, who would obtain bhumidhari certificate and execute a sale deed of it within 30 days in favour of Mahant Ram Udar Das. A written compromise signed by Ram Udar Das, Raghubar Das and also by Nritya Gopal Das was filed in the Court on 24.12.1971 which was verified and suit was decided in term of compromise by order dated 24.01.1972. 5. The petitioners filed an application dated 17.02.2014 for recall of the aforesaid order along with delay condonation application. A written compromise signed by Ram Udar Das, Raghubar Das and also by Nritya Gopal Das was filed in the Court on 24.12.1971 which was verified and suit was decided in term of compromise by order dated 24.01.1972. 5. The petitioners filed an application dated 17.02.2014 for recall of the aforesaid order along with delay condonation application. In the application, it has been stated that plots 525-Ka (area 8 biswa 5 biswansi) and 525-Kha (area 13 biswa) of village Majha Barehata pargana Haveli Awadh, district Faizabad, were recorded in the name of Sri Ram Jankee, Virajman Mandir Sita Ram, Basarvarakar Mahant Ram Udar Das, Chela Awadh Biharee Das resident of Ram Ghat Ayodhya. At present Ram Das was heir and legal representative of Mahant Ram Udar Das and in possession of the land in dispute. Ram Kumar Das (opposite party-3) by committing forgery filed the suit. In which a forged compromise was filed and impugned order dated 24.01.1972 was secured. On its basis, he was recognized as tenant of the land in dispute and on its basis, he got his name recorded in the revenue records. Village Majha Barehata has now been notified under Section 4 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 6. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, by exparte order dated 09.06.2015 condoned the delay in filing the recall application and heard arguments in recall application and reserved order on it. Ram Kumar Das (respondent-2) filed an application for recall of the orders dated 06.06.2015 and 09.06.2015. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 19.06.2015, recalled the order dated 06.06.2015. However, he found that by order dated 09.06.2015, only delay in filing recall application has been condoned as such it is not liable to be recalled. He fixed 23.06.2015 for hearing the recall application. 7. On 23.06.2015, Ram Kumar Das filed an application for abating the proceeding of recall application on the ground that village in question has been notified under Section 4 (2) of the Act. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 25.06.2015, held that recall application cannot be abated. As the village has been placed under consolidation operation as such such recall application was allowed, order dated 24.01.1972 was recalled and suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 25.06.2015, held that recall application cannot be abated. As the village has been placed under consolidation operation as such such recall application was allowed, order dated 24.01.1972 was recalled and suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Ram Kumar Das filed an application dated 25.06.2015 for recall of the order dated 25.06.2015 on the ground that it was passed without hearing the arguments, which was rejected by order dated 06.08.2015, on the ground that order dated 25.06.2015 was passed on merit. In meantime, Ram Kumar Das filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1498 of 2014-15, before Board of Revenue, U.P. against the orders dated 09.06.2015, 19.06.2015 and 25.06.2015, in which impugned order has been passed. Now this writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.07.2015 along with entire proceeding of the revision, pending before Board of Revenue. 8. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that village Manja Barehata has been placed under consolidation operation by notification dated 02.06.2015 under Section 4 (2) of the Act. This fact is admitted to Ram Kumar Das who has also application dated 23.06.2015, for abating recall application. Section 5 (2) of the Act has an overriding effect, which provides for abatement of suit at any stage either of appeal, revision or reference. Exparte fraudulent decree dated 24.01.1972 has been recalled by order dated 25.06.2015 and the suit has been restored to its original number. Additional Sub-Divisional Officer therefore rightly abated the suit under Section 5 (2) of the Act by order dated 25.06.2015. As notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act has been issued as such the revision is not maintainable. It is an abuse of process of the Court and harassment of the parties in illegal manner. Order dated 31.07.2015 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entire proceeding of Revision No. 1498 of 2014-15 filed by Ram Kumar Das along with order dated 31.07.2015 is liable to be quashed. He relied upon judgment of Board of Revenue, U.P. in Paras Nath Vs. Gaon Sabha, 1975 RD 52, in which it has been held that revision filed against the order allowing the restoration application is liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act along with suit. Judgments of this Court in Gopi Nath Vs. He relied upon judgment of Board of Revenue, U.P. in Paras Nath Vs. Gaon Sabha, 1975 RD 52, in which it has been held that revision filed against the order allowing the restoration application is liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act along with suit. Judgments of this Court in Gopi Nath Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 1984 RD 242 and Dhanpati Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2003 (94) RD 690 , in which it has been held that the moment exparte decree is set aside, the suit is revived and became pending as such the suit is liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. The question as to whether ex-parte decree was rightly set aside or not could only be determined when the Court would be competent to examine the merit of the suit. After setting aside exparte decree, if there is no interim order in appeal/revision, then trial Court is fully competent to abate the proceedings of the suit. After abatement of the suit, the revision will be rendered as infructuous. The revision is not maintainable and entire proceeding of the revision along with order dated 31.07.2015 is liable to be quashed. 9. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, Standing Counsel submitted that abatement as provided under Section 5 (2) of the Act, the suit as well as the appeal, revision or reference arising out of suit, abates only on the order being passed in this respect as held by Division Bench of this Court in Triveni Vs. State of U.P., 1968 A.L.J. 570 (DB) and Single Judge in Ram Charit Singh Vs. DDC and others, 1992 All.C.J. 41, Ram Nawal Vs. The Board of Revenue, U.P. , 2006 All.C.J. 1343 and Jangi Lal Vs. DDC and others, 2007 (103) RD 426. Section 5 (2) of the Act, provides for abatement of the suit as well as the appeal, revision or reference arising out of suit. Review and recall application do not fall within purview of Section 5 (2) of the Act as held by Full Bench of this Court in Sakal Singh Vs. Smt. Devi, 1979 (5) All.L.R. 383 (FB), Ram Autar Vs. DDC and others, 1994 RD 292 and Ram Nawal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2006 All.C.J. 1343 and Full Bench of Board of Revenue, U.P. in Mahabir Vs. Mangal, 1982 A.W.C. 4 (Revenue) (FB). Smt. Devi, 1979 (5) All.L.R. 383 (FB), Ram Autar Vs. DDC and others, 1994 RD 292 and Ram Nawal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2006 All.C.J. 1343 and Full Bench of Board of Revenue, U.P. in Mahabir Vs. Mangal, 1982 A.W.C. 4 (Revenue) (FB). In this Case, Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, by a composite order dated 25.06.2015, recalled order dated 24.01.1972, restored the suit to its original number and abated it under Section 5 (2) of the Act as such the revision is maintainable. There can be no order of the Court of original jurisdiction, which cannot be challenged in higher Court/forum. Abatement under Section 5 (2) of the Act, takes place only on the order being passed in this respect by the Court, therefore aggrieved party can challenge it before higher forum. If the principle that legality and propriety of any order restoring the suit and abating it cannot be challenged by aggrieved party, then he will be left with no remedy which is against well recognized principle that there can be no wrong without any remedy. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. Relevant provisions of the Act relating to abatement of the suit and proceeding are quoted below- Section 5 (2) : - Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4, the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely- (a) Every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceeding can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, shall abated. Section 4 (2) (a): - When the State Government decides to start consolidation operations, either in an area covered by a declaration issued under sub-section (1) or in any other area, it may issue notification to this effect. Section 4 (2) (a): - When the State Government decides to start consolidation operations, either in an area covered by a declaration issued under sub-section (1) or in any other area, it may issue notification to this effect. (b): - Every such notification shall be published in the Gazette and in a daily newspaper having circulation in the said area and shall also be published in each unit of the said area in such manner as may be considered appropriate. Section 3- (8). Publication in the unit or publish in the unit with reference to any document means reading out of the document in the unit on a date of which prior notice shall be given by beat of drum and proclamation by beat of drum, or, in any other customary mode, in the unit of the fact that the document is open to public inspection at an appointed place and time. Provided that where a Consolidation Committee has been constituted for the unit, each member of the said committee shall also be individually informed of the fact of publication. 11. Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that by notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act, consolidation operation is started in the unit. Section 4 (2) (b) provides that every such notification shall be published in the Gazette and in a daily newspaper having circulation in the said area and shall also be published in each unit of the said area in such manner as may be considered appropriate. The procedure for notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act in the unit has been provided under Section 3 (8), which is required to be recorded in CH Form-29 by the competent authority. The petitioner has filed copy of notification dated 02.06.2015, published in the official gazette but has not filed any document to prove that it was published in the unit according to the provisions of Section 3 (8) of the Act. The petitioner has filed copy of notification dated 02.06.2015, published in the official gazette but has not filed any document to prove that it was published in the unit according to the provisions of Section 3 (8) of the Act. So long as notification under Section 4 (2) (b) is not published, provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Act, has no application as such this Court is not inclined to interfere with the jurisdiction of revisional court to examine legality, propriety and correctness of the order of Sub-Divisional Officer recalling the order dated 24.01.1972 condoning inordinate delay of more than 40 years without recording any finding regarding sufficiency of cause for condoning delay and recalling the order. 12. Purpose of abatement under Section 5 (2) of the Act as held by Supreme Court in Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope, AIR 1981 SC 1450 , is that when a scheme of consolidation is undertaken, the Act provides for adjudication of various claims to land involved in consolidation by the authorities set up under the Act. In order to permit the authorities to pursue adjudication of rival claims to land unhampered by any proceedings in civil courts, a wholesome provision was made that the pending proceedings involving claims to land in the hierarchy of civil courts, may be in the trial court, appeal or revision, should abate. This provision was made with a view to ensuring unhampered adjudication of claims to land before the authorities under the Consolidation Act without being obstructed by proceedings in civil courts or without being hampered or impeded by decisions of the civil courts in the course of consolidation of holdings. In order to avoid conflict consequent upon rival jurisdictions the legislature provided that the proceedings involving the claims to land put in consolidation should be exclusively examined by the authorities under the Consolidation Act and all rival jurisdiction would be closed. Simultaneously it was necessary to deal with the pending proceedings and that is why the provision for abatement of such proceedings. Full Bench of this Court in Sakal Singh Vs. Smt. Devi, 1979 (5) All.L.R. 383 (FB) held that if the matter has already become final by a competent Court that would not be reopened taking shelter of Section 5 (2) of the Act. 13. This Court in Pradeep Kumar Dixit Vs. Full Bench of this Court in Sakal Singh Vs. Smt. Devi, 1979 (5) All.L.R. 383 (FB) held that if the matter has already become final by a competent Court that would not be reopened taking shelter of Section 5 (2) of the Act. 13. This Court in Pradeep Kumar Dixit Vs. U.P. C-operative Bank Ltd., 2002 (2) AWC 1051 and Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 2011 (2) All LJ 370 (DB) held that there is no wrong without remedy. Abatement of the suit etc. under Section 5 (2) of the Act, is not automatic and the order of abatement is required to be passed. There can be no reason to preclude the aggrieved party from invoking jurisdiction of higher authorities to examine the correctness of the order of abatement. Supreme Court in Maria Cristina De Souza Sodder v. Amria Zurana Pereira Pinto, (1979) 1 SCC 92 , held that it is no doubt well-settled that the right of appeal is a substantive right and it gets vested in a litigant no sooner the lis is commenced in the Court of the first instance, and such right or any remedy in respect thereof will not be affected by any repeal of the enactment conferring such right unless the repealing enactment either expressly or by necessary implication takes away such right or remedy in respect thereof. Thus revision is also vested right under the Act of 1950. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the jurisdiction of statutory authority to decide the revision in accordance with law. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no interference is required by this Court at this stage. The petitioner is given liberty to raise all the points, raised before this Court, before Board of Revenue, U.P. in revision, which shall be considered and decided by Board of Revenue, U.P. without being prejudiced by any observation of this Court. The writ petition is dismissed at this stage.