Sindhu Naik and Others vs Bajendra Naik and Others

R.N. Misra, J.—This is an application by some of the Defendants in a pending suit for permanent injunction filed by the landlord.

In the suit, Defendants have taken the stand that they are Bhag Chasis in possession. They moved an application when the suit was called for hearing that they have a I ready made applications u/s 36A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') for recognising their tenancy right and the said application is pending before the appropriate revenue Court. According to them as the question of determining tenancy is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue Court, the suit is barred in view of Section 67 of the Act. The learned Trial Judge having rejected the application, this Civil Revision has been filed.

Reliance has been placed by Mr. Patra for the Petitioners on two decisions of this Court, namely Raghunath Das and Ors. v. Brundaban Baliarsingh and Anr. S.A. No. 147 of 1967-D/3-12-1970, and Pandaba Sahu Vs. Banchha Palei and Another, . In both these cases, the question as to how a suit has to be dealt with when a proceeding before the revenue Court is pending was dealt with and the principle indicated in both the cases directly supports the con mention of Mr. Patra, that when the Revenue Officer is in seisin of a proceeding before him, by operation of the provisions of Section 67 of the Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand ousted. The learned Trial Judge relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dandapani Sahu Vs. Konchada Panduranga Subudhi and Others, in support of his order that stay need not be granted. The facts of that case are very different. While on an analysis of the statutory provisions, it was held that Civil Court''s jurisdiction would stand ousted when an application u/s 36-A of the Act is made, it was found that there was already a decree against the alleged tenant and, therefore, an application at the instance of the person claiming as a tenant contrary to the decree was not maintainable before the Revenue Officer. The facts there being so different from the present case where there has been no determination of the Civil Court as yet, the learned Trial Judge was not justified in finding support for his conclusion from that decision. I am satisfied that it is a fit case where the trial of the suit has to be stayed until disposal of the proceeding before the Revenue Officer. It is appropriate that the Revenue Officer do expedite the disposal of the case and parties are entitled to move him for such disposal.

The Civil Revision is allowed, the impugned order is vacated and the suit is stayed. It is open to the learned Trial Judge to pass appropriate direction from time to time requiring the parties to produce satisfactory evidence before him as to the stage of the revenue proceeding. I make no order as to costs.