A suit for declaration of status as under-raiyat and for injunction against interference by defendants is maintainable in the civil court if the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 does not provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to the status of under-raiyats.

JUDGMENT :

P.C. Misra, J. - The Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 18 of 1986 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Athagarh are the Petitioners in this revision. They had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC praying for injunction against the Defendants which having been refused by the learned Subordinate Judge, Athagarh, they preferred Misc. Appeal No. 92 of 1986 in the Court of the District Judge, Cuttack. The learned 1st. Additional District Judge, Cuttack, who heard the matter, confirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge against which this revision has been filed. The facts necessary for the adjudication of this revision may be briefly stated as follows:

2. The Plaintiffs, who jointly filed the suit, claimed to be the under raiyats in respect of the suit land. Their case is that the deity Defendant No. 1, was the intermediary, under whom they were continuing as under raiyats and that their status as under-raiyats has been recognised from time to time by the deity and its Marfatdars. Their right having been interfered with by the Defendants 3 to 7 they have filed the suit praying for the following reliefs:

(a) the Plaintiffs are sikmi-raiyats in: respect of the suit lands and are entitled to be recorded as such in all records of the Defendant No. 1, (b) the Plaintiffs were raiyats in respect of the suit lands under Defendant No. 1 and the intermediary interest of Defendants 2 to 6 having been abolished, the Plaintiffs are liable to pay rent for the suit land to Defendant No. I, according to the provisionsof the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952;and (c) the Defendants Nos. 2 to 7 and all those claiming under them including the Defendant Nos. 8 to 11 be permanently injuncted from coming upon the suit lands.

3. The learned trial Court while holding that the Plaintiffs have been continuing in possession of the suit properties and that the Defendants have been disturbing their right on some prevaricating pleas, refused to grant the injunction on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in the civil Court. The learned lower appellate Court also confirmed the same finding by saying that the suit as framed is cognizable by a revenue Court and therefore, the Plaintiffs have no prima facie case to be entitled to an order of injunction.

4. Mr. S. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, urged that the learned Courts below have not exercised the jurisdiction vested in them and committed a material irregularity and illegality in exercise of their jurisdiction by refusing to grant injunction on the erroneous assumption that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to him~ it is the civil Court alone which can entertain such a suit and therefore should have granted injunction in the suit. Mr. R. Ch. Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that both the Courts below having refused to grant injunction, the same cannot be interfered with u/s 115 of the CPC Code. He further contended that the reliefs, as prayed for is cognizable by the revenue authorities as per the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and, therefore, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the prayer for injunction. Mr. Mohanty, further contended that the various documents referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners should not be looked into as the maintainability or otherwise of the suit should be decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint alone which, according to him, clearly establish that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit 5. Before going into the merits of the question as to whether the suit as framed is entertainable by the civil Court, I would like to go to the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mohanty as to the authority of this Court to revise the order in question in exercise of its powers u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code. It is firmly established in law that any error committed by a Court subordinate to the