The stay of a suit is at the discretion of the trial Court, and it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that a suit for injunction has to be stayed till the matter is determined by the authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.

JUDGMENT :

D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 100 of 1985 now pending in the Court of the Munsif. Bargarh filed this application u/s 115 of the CPC assailing the order dated 22-12-1986 whereby the learned trial Judge rejected their application to stay further proceedings in the suit tin final disposal of the proceeding under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of land Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act').

2. The Petitioners filed the suit against the opp. parties with the prayer for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to remove the obstruction of the Plaintiffs' passage to the suit land and for permanent injunction directing them not to interfere with their peaceful possession over the suit land and for damages etc. The opp. parties filed written statement refuting the claims of the Petitioners and praying for dismissal of the suit.

3. For the present purpose it is not necessary to set out in detail the averments in the plaint and the written statement. During pendency at the suit the area in which the suit land is situated came within the operation of consolidation scheme. Thereafter the Petitioners filed an application for stay of further proceedings in the suit till final disposal of the proceedings under the Act on the sole ground that determination of the question relating to right, title and interest to the suit property was within competence of the authorities under the Act and therefore the suit should be stayed till disposal of the proceeding under the Act. The trial Court, on consideration, was not inclined to accept the prayer of the Petitioners and passed the impugned order rejecting the application.

4. It is not disputed before me that maintainability of the suit in the Civil Court was not affected by the provisions of Section 4(4) or Section 51 of the Act since it was a suit for injunction which relief was not available to be granted by consolidation authorities.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners urged that though the suit was filed for permanent injunction, since the question of right, title and interest in the suit and was relevant and material for disposal or the suit and that matter was within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act, the trial Court ought to have stayed the suit. Indeed it was his submission that in such a case the only course open to the trial Court was to await the final decision of the said authorities all the question of title to the property. He placed reliance on two decisions of this Court, viz. Banambar Tripathy Vs. Collector of Ganjam and Another, ; Panchu Das and Another Vs. Jata Behera and Others, .

6. On giving my anxious thought to the matter, I amiable to accept the aforesaid contention. I have perused both the aforesaid decisions. In my view no support is available from them for the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The position is well settled that the question of stay of suit is at the discretion of the trial Court. It cannot therefore be laid down as a general proposition of law that where in a suit for injunction or any other relief for grant of which there is no provision in the Act, a suit is filed in the Civil Court and the question of right, title and interest to the property incidentally arises for consideration therein the suit has to be stayed till the matter is determined by the authorities under the Act. Accepting such a proposition, in my view, will be putting unnecessary fetters on the jurisdiction of Court. The matter assumes particular importance in the background that a suit for declaration of right, title and interest to a property covered under the consolidation scheme is not entertain able by the Civil Court as provided u/s 51 of the Act and even pending proceedings are to abate on an order to that effect being passed by the Court as provided u/s 4(A) of the Act. It is only the suits in which the relief sought are not within the