PARAMANANDA PANDA Vs. PUNANANDA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two civil revision arise from the same suit (Title Suit No. 242 of 1977) and involve the common question, whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to restore the suit which had been earlier held to have abated under Section 4 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of. Land Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short) after the notification under Section 3 of the Act was cancelled in respect of the village in which the suit properties are situated The trial Court has rejected the petitioners' application to restore the suit and Misc. Case No. 262 of 1977 arising out of the application for injunction in the said suit holding that he has no jurisdiction to do so

(2.) THE petitioners filed the suit praying for the following reliefs:

(3.) THE impugned order becomes unsaustainable on another ground also. As already noted above, one of the reliefs sought in the suit was to permanently injunct the defendant No. 1 to enter upon lands described in Schedule 'S' and 'C of the plaint. It is now well settled that the suit for permanent injunction does not abate under Section 4(4) of the Act since the Act makes no provision enabling the consolidation authorities to grant the relief of injunction. [See 54 (1982) C. L. T. 143 : Rahas Bewa v. Kanduri Charan Sutar and Ors. and 58(1984) C.L.T. 359 : (1984 (I) OLR 887); Duruju Mailik v. Krupasindhu Swain]. As such the present suit wherein one of the reliefs sought was for permanent injunction and wherein an application under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C., had been made and order of injunction had been passed could not be held to have abated under Section 4(4) of the Act. The legal position on both the grounds enunciated above is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.