JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the daughter of the defendant no.2. She purchased the property along with one Harihar Sahu and Dasarathi Sahu by means of a registered sale deed dated 03.06.65 for a valid consideration. Possession was duly delivered to them. The property was partitioned amongst the three persons. The suit land fell to share of the plaintiff. When defendant no.1 started a construction, she instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

3. The defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that the description of the suit land is vague. The name of the plaintiff had been wrongly recorded in the M.S. R.O.R. The plaintiff had produced a sale deed dated 03.06.65 by making interpolation, whereafter her name was recorded. Even though the suit land had been recorded in the name of aforesaid persons, the suit land was allotted to defendant no.2. He was in possession of the same. He sold the land by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.11.78. In the draft consolidation land register, the name of defendant no.1 had been recorded. The said order attained finality. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. The suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck eight issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that the consolidation authority has no power to grant injunction and as such the suit is hit under Sec.51 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (“the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act”). In view of the consolidation L.R. and M.S. R.O.R., the title remains in favour of the plaintiff. Held so, it decreed the suit. The defendants filed T.A. No. 30 of 1990 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bargarh. Learned appellate court came to hold that the suit is hit under Sec. 51 of the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act. The present suit is not a suit for injunction simplicitor, since it requires determination of right, title and interest of the parties. Held so, it allowed the appeal.

5. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-“Whether the lower appellate court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit was hit by Sec. 51 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 ?”

6. Mr. Baibaswata Panigrahi, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that notwithstanding bar contained in Sec. 51 of the O.C.H. and P.F.L. Act, 1972, the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable.

7. Per contra, Mr. Jagannath Bhuyan, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Routray, learned advocate for the respondent submits that since complicated questions of title are involved, suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. He relies on a decision of this Court in Bholanath Bal and others v. Nandi Bal and others, 2018 (I) OLR 173.

8. In Duruju Mallik @ Duryodhan Swain Vrs. Krupasindhu Swain, 58 (1984) C.L.T.359 (F.B.) it was held:-

“It is well known that a party cannot be non-suited when under the law he does not have any alternative forum for the redressal of his grievances. When his rights are of civil nature, the relief’s which flow from such rights and which he is entitled to get should be available from the Civil Court where the officer or authority has not been empowered to grant the same.

In view of that has been discussed above, we agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Rahas Bewa v. Kanduri Chanran Sutar and others (supra) that it becomes difficult to accept the submission that a suit for permanent injunction pending at common law shall stan