JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 1986 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge,Khurda in Title Appeal No.6 of 1985 confirming the judgment and decree of learned Munsif, Khurda in O.S. No.150 of 1978 (I).

2. The appellant,as plaintiff filed O.S. No.150 of 1978(I) in the Court of Munsif, Khurda seeking the following reliefs:

(i) to declare the order of the Revenue Officer, Khurda declar¬ing the defendant-respondent as Raiyat, as illegal, without any jurisdiction and not binding.

(ii) for declaration of her title, confirmation of possession over the suit land and if found dispossessed for recovery of possession of the same.

(iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from entering into the suit land and interfering with her possession.

3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant, in brief, is that, she got the suit land in her share in the family partition and was in possession of the same but suddenly in the year 1975, the defendant-respondent started O.L.R. Case No. 722 of 1975 under Section 36-A of O.L.R. Act before the Revenue Officer, Khurda claim¬ing that he is a tenant under the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land. She claimed that fraudulently suppressing the notice in that case, the respondent obtained an ex parte decree and when she got that ex parte decree set aside, he entered into collusion with her son Jagannath Prasad Daspuria and obtained an endorse¬ment on an amendment petition that he is a raiyat on Ac.0.380 dec.of land out of plot Nos. 444 and 446 and basing on such concession of Jagannath Prasad Daspuria, the Revenue Officer declared the respondent as a raiyat over that land and issued a certificate in his favour under Section 8 of the O.L.R. Act. She alleged that the Revenue Officer declared the respondent as a tenant over the suit land without making any statutory enquiry and without ascertaining as to whether Jagannath Prasad Daspuria had any right to concede to the claim of the respondent on her behalf. She, accordingly, filed the suit seeking the aforemen¬tioned reliefs.

4. Defendant-respondent while denying the entire allega¬tion of the plaintiff-appellant pleaded inter alia that he is a tenant over Ac.0.370 decimals of land under he appellant and that the said fact was confirmed by the local Revenue Inspector, who conducted an inquiry and also by Jagannath Prasad Dasapuria, who is the son and general power of attorney holder of the appellant. He claimed that notice was never suppressed and the Revenue Officer scrupulously followed the relevant provisions of the O.L.R. Act. He also denied any collusion with the son of the appellant. In addition to these pleadings, the respondent challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that in view of Section 67of the O.L.R. Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to enter¬tain or try the suit.

5. From the pleadings, learned Munsif framed as many as six issues and received evidences of the parties. The plaintiff examined herself only as P.W.1 and filed the certified copy of entire order sheet of O.L.R. Case No.722 of 1975 of the Tahasildar, Khurda and the certificate granted by the Revenue Officer in favour of the defendant-respondent, which were marked as Exts. 1 and 2 respectively. The defendant-respondent examined himself as D.W.2 and examined the son of the plaintiffs as D.W.1 and one local person as D.W.3. On assessment of these evidences, learned Munsif concluded that D.W.1 was the authorised agent and power of attorney holder of the appellant, that there was no collusion between D.W.1 and D.W.2, that order passed by the Revenue officer in O.L.R. Case No.722 of 1975 is in conformity with the fundamental principle and procedures of the O.L.R. Act and is in no way capri¬cious, unfair or arbitrary. He accordingly held that Section 67 of the O.L.R. Act bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit or to interfere with the order of learned Revenue Of¬ficer. Conseque