PRAFULLA BEHERA Vs. SUDHAMANI BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant no. 2 of Civil Suit No.158 of 2012 of the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Puri has assailed the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the said court rejecting an application for stay of further proceeding of the suit on the ground that a revision is pending before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar relating to the subject matter involved in the suit.

(2.) The defendant no.2-petitioner states that in respect of properties situated in mouza Inchal, Bairipur and Beherana, he has filed consolidation revision nos. 262, 263 and 264 of 2013 before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, The defendant no.2 claims that the decision of the consolidation authority has bearing on the suit and, therefore, he prayed that till disposal of the consolidation revision, the hearing of the suit be stayed.

(3.) The plaintiffs-opposite parties had filed objection to the petition wherein they stated that the petition has been filed in a careless manner, when opposite party no.2, who is an old lady, has come to the court to give evidence. They stated that the petition has been filed with an intention to stop the recording of evidence of opposite party no.2. They further stated that when the date was fixed for giving evidence and plaintiff no.2 came to the court for such purpose, at that time the petition for stay has been filed, which is an after thought. It is further stated that the defendants have filed the petition to harass the opposite party no.2, who is aged about 80 years. They further claimed that the said revision cases pending before the consolidation commissioner do not relate to the suit land and the petition does not show for whose property the present cases are filed and the same is not clear from the petition. It is also stated that the petition for stay does not reveal whether the revision case has been admitted or not and whether the delay has been condoned or not. It also does not reflect whether notice has been issued or not. The certified copy of the order-sheet has also not been filed for appreciation of the court. It is further stated that the revision has been filed in the year, 2013 which is much after filing of the suit in 2012. However, the defendant no.2 slept over the matter and all of a sudden, has filed the revision to frustrate the issues involved in the suit, i.e. defendant no.2 is adopted son of plaintiff no.2 and her husband. Such issues cannot be decided by the consolidation commissioner as he has no jurisdiction in that regard and during consolidation the status of defendant no.2 was not raised and the consolidation ROR has been published and that the consolidation authority has no jurisdiction to decided the fraud, alleged against defendant nos. 2 and 3, who have obtained the alleged deed of adoption along with the husband of defendant no.3 on false representation. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed that there is no reason to stay further proceeding of the suit. It is further case of the plaintiffsopposite parties that the revision has been filed after notification under Section 41 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short 'the OCH & PFL Act') and, therefore, it cannot be a ground for stay of the civil suit. Accordingly, the opposite parties prayed to reject the petition.