JUDGMENT :

S. PANDA, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.5.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.S. No. 237 of 2013 allowing an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner as plaintiff filed C.S. No. 237 of 2013 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri for permanent injunction. Along with the plaint the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction, which was registered as I.A. No. 113 of 2013.

3. The opposite parties-defendants appeared in the suit through caveat and filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint inter alia taking a stand that the suit is barred by law under the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 in view of the plea of Benami Transaction taken by the plaintiff between one Jayakrushna and defendant No. 2. The pleading disclose no cause of action against the defendants, hence the plaint is liable to be rejected. The plaintiff filed her objection to the said application contending that the suit is not• barred under the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 as the said Act has got prospective effect and in this case the Sale Deed challenged by the plaintiff were of the year 1972 and 1974. The title of the property is sub judice between the parties before the Commissioner, Consolidation therefore the present suit for permanent injunctions is maintainable.

4. The court below after hearing the parties by the impugned order allowed the application with a finding that the present suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable more particularly when the right, title, interest of the parties is in dispute before the Consolidation, Commissioner. The claim of the plaintiff is not only barred under Section 51 of O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 but also the same is barred under Section 67 of the O.L.R. Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate that neither Section 51 of O.C.H & P.F.L. Act nor Section 67 of O.L.R. Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for permanent injunction. He further submitted that if the matter is pending before the Consolidation authorities, the Civil Court can grant relief of permanent injunction. He also submitted that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose after final publication of the Consolidation R.O.R. and closure of Consolidation Operation in the Mouza. In support of his contention he has relied on the decisions reported.

6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties however supported the impugned order and submitted that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants. He further submitted that against the impugned order is appealable therefore the Writ Petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied on the decisions reported in 2013 (II) CLR 958, 2012 (1) OLR 569 and (2014) 117 CLT 1052.

7. This Court in the case of Arun Kumar vs. N. Nirmala Devi and Others, 2013 (II) CLR 958 : 2013 (Supp. II) OLR 619, held that an order rejecting a plaint on whatever ground, is a decree, as defined under Section 2 (2) of the CPC and is appealable.

7.1 In the case of Bijan Kishore Mohanty vs. Smt. Kanakalata Das @ Mohanty and Others, 2012 (1) OLR 569 this Court held that for rejecting a plaint only the averments of the plaint are to be gone into and the Court has to ensure that meaningless litigations, which are otherwise bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to occupy the judicial time of the Court. If from perusal of the plaint itself it is seen that the plaintiff has absolutely no interest over the suit properties, even if , the plaintiff has alleged some facts to be existing, which are required to be provided during the tri