JUDGMENT :

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated January 3, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 461 of 2018 present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred.

2. Petitioner contended that the opposite party herein as plaintiff has instituted aforesaid suit against the petitioner and the proforma opposite parties claiming diverse reliefs including decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff/opposite party is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff’s allegation in the said suit are all untrue and incorrect. The defendant/petitioner herein took out an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said suit praying inter alia for rejection of the plaint and/or dismissal of the suit. In the said application petitioner contended that the suit is not maintainable under Section 51C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and they have specifically contended that the plaintiff had approached the wrong forum for redressal of his grievances.

3. Opposite party no. 2 herein has opposed the said application and learned court below upon hearing rival contentions was pleased to dismiss the said application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code by the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2019.

4. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that a meaningful reading of the contents of the plaint clearly suggests that the suit is barred under Section 51C of the Act of 1955. By a clever drafting the plaintiff wanted to establish his title claiming that the entry in record of rights is erroneous. In this context he has pointed out the cause of action of the suit as has been stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint read with paragraphs 10 and 11 of the plaint. He contended that the plaintiff has specifically stated that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order by the BL and LRO dated 08.03.2018 he preferred an application before LRTT and his cause of action of the present suit arose on and from 08.03.2018 on which date the concerned B.L.& L.R.O. observed that R.S. RoR does not reflect the name of the plaintiff’s predecessor and that defendants got the suit plot no. 183 by way of exchange and plaintiffs got plot no. 128 by way of exchange against that plot no. 183. Accordingly Mr. Basu submits that plaintiff’s cause of action arose due to the order passed by BL and LRO on 08.03.2018 and the said order has also been challenged before the LRTT which is pending before the said forum and as such civil court has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the said issue. Referring a judgement in the case of Nemai Chandra Kundu –Vs.- Kalyan Das & Ors., reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 14050, he contended that the relief claimed in this suit is practically for correction of the record of rights along with a prayer for declaration of title. Such suit is not maintainable in a civil court of law under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this context he also relied upon the judgement in the case of T. Arivandandam –Vs.- T. V. Satyapal & Anr., reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467. He further submitted that the court below ought to have appreciated that the plaint itself ex facie barred by limitation and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and should have appreciated that the plaintiff had approached before a wrong forum to agitate his grievances by deliberately undervaluing the reliefs claimed. Accordingly he has prayed for setting asi