JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ application involves a challenge to the order at Annexure-3 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation, Sambalpur involving C.R. Case No. 314/88. 2. Assailing the impugned order, Sri Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners raised a preliminary objection to the impugned order on the premises that once a preliminary decree is there involving a partition suit pending for final decree, in the event of commencement of consolidation proceeding in the locality, such preliminary decree shall stand abated. It is in this context, a further question is also raised as to whether in presence of a preliminary decree already observing the agricultural land to be partitioned by the Consolidation Authority and the Civil Court Commissioner partition the house site, it is still open to the Consolidation Authority to declare such preliminary decree bad and proceed with the consolidation proceeding to decide the title and interest of the party involved therein? Taking this Court to the development taking place through the suit ending with rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order landing in finality of preliminary decree, Sri Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that for the civil suit attaining finality pending in final decree consolidation process undertaken in the locality cannot abate such preliminary decree. 3. Sri Routray, learned counsel for the contesting O.P.4, on the other hand, taking this Court to the observations of the Consolidation Authority holding that such decree being contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1980 C.L.T. 337 and for the observation of the revisional authority contended that there is no dispute that the decree, if any, shall stand abated on coming into force of the consolidation operation in the locality. 4. Sri S.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for O.Ps.1 to 3 also supported the stand taken by the learned counsel for O.P.4. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the questions involved, as indicated herein above, this Court finds, Sub-Section (4) of Section 4 of the Odisha Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 reads as follows:- “4. Effect of Notification - Upon the publication of the notification issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 in the Official Gazette. Effect of Notification - Upon the publication of the notification issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 in the Official Gazette. The consequences as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, ensure in the consolidation area till the publication of notification under Section 41 or Sub-Section (1) of Section 5, as the case may be: xxx xxx xxx (4) Every suit and proceedings for declaration of any right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area in regard to which proceedings could be or ought to be started under this Act, which is pending before any Civil Court, whether of the first instance or appeal reference or revision shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court before which such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated.” For the provision at Sub-Section (4) of Section 4 of the OHC & PFL Act, it is made clear that every suit and proceeding for declaration of right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area pending before any civil court, appeal reference or revision on an order being passed in that behalf by the court before which such suit or proceeding pending stands abated. 6. Considering the background involved herein and the pleadings of the parties, this Court finds, the civil suit initiated among the parties having come to an end, there is already preliminary decree. Not only that there was no suit pending before the trial court on the other hand the preliminary decree was pending for final decree in the executing court. Therefore, looking to the language and the purport of Section 4(4) of the OCH & PFL Act making thereby any suit pending for adjudication shall stand abated. For the suit being already adjudicated and on the admission of both sides that no appeal involving such judgment and decree is pending nor revising therefrom, this Court finds, the provision of Sub-Section (4) of Section 4 of the OCH & PFL Act has no application to the case at hand. The revisional authority has miss-read and miss-applied the same in passing the impugned judgment. This Court here takes into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in Paras Nath Rai and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 2013 SC 1010 : (2012) 12 SCC 642 , paragraph-38 reads as follows:- “38. The revisional authority has miss-read and miss-applied the same in passing the impugned judgment. This Court here takes into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in Paras Nath Rai and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 2013 SC 1010 : (2012) 12 SCC 642 , paragraph-38 reads as follows:- “38. The Full Bench was dealing with an appeal directed against the final decree for partition. The question before the Full Bench was whether under Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Administration of Land Act, 1972 (for short ‘the 1972 Act’) a final decree stood abated. The Full Bench referred to the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the 1972 Act, scanned the language employed in sub-section (4) of Section 4 and came to hold that a final decree proceeding cannot be characterized as a suit or a proceeding for right, title or interest in respect of any land. It has been opined there that Section 4(4) does not include an appeal arising out of a final decree as the same would not declare any right, title or interest of the parties but deal with certain matters pertaining to what has already been declared. Pendency of an appeal against the final decree cannot take away the finality of the preliminary decree which has already declared the rights, title and interest of the parties. We may repeat for clarity that in the said case, the preliminary decree passed in the suit had become final as it was not challenged by way of an appeal. Thus, the factual matrix was quite different.” 7. Taking into reliance the full Bench decision taken reliance by the counsel for O.P.4 and also referred by the Joint Commissioner, vide 1980 CLT 337 , on search this Court finds, the decision so reflected is a decision involving a criminal case and has no application to the case at hand. Even the only full Bench decision available therein has no application to the case at hand. 8. For the observation of this Court herein above and the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court, this Court finds, the impugned order at Annexure-3 is not sustainable. As such, this Court interfering with the impugned order at Annexure-3 sets aside the same in restoring the orders of the original authority as well as the appellate authority. 9. The writ petition succeeds. No cost.