The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to the bar contained in Section 51 read with Section 41(2) of the OCH & PFL Act, and the application of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in rejecting the plaint based on the bar contained in any law.

JUDGMENT :

A.K.Rath, J.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 6.8.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur in Civil Revision Petition No.7 of 2017. By the said order, the revisional court dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated 2.8.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambalpur in Civil Suit No.226 of 2016 rejecting the application of defendant no.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party no.1 instituted the suit for partition, declaration that the registered sale deeds dated 1.7.2016, 11.4.2013 and 6.8.2015 are null and void and permanent injunction. The defendant no.3 appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint stating that the suit is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 51 read with Section 41 (2) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act ("OCH & PFL Act"). The plaintiff filed objection. Learned trial court rejected the petition on 2.8.2017. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, defendant no.3 filed Civil Revision Petition No.7 of 2017 before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur, which met with the same fate.

3. Heard Mr.Sidhartha Mishra along with Mr.Swaroop Kumar Das, learned Advocates for the petitioner and Mr.Debendra Kumar Sahoo, learned Advocate for opposite parties 1 & 2.

4. Mr.Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter of dispute was before the consolidation authority. The matter is pending before the Additional Commissioner of Consolidation & Settlement, Sambalpur. The consolidation operation has not been closed in view of the deeming provision of sub-section 2 of Section 41 of the OCH & PFL Act. The consolidation authorities have been vested with power to decide the right, title and interest of the parties. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. If grant of permanent injunction depends upon the determination of the right and interest in any land situated in the consolidation area, the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. He further contended that a stranger cannot challenge the sale deed on the ground of legal necessity, unless he or she has interest in the property. In view of the same, the plaint may be rejected. To buttress the submission, he places reliance on the decisions in the case of Duruju Mallik @ Duryodhan Swain v. Kruspasindhu Swain and others, 1985 AIR Orissa 200, Girija Mohanty v. R.D.C. (Central Division), Cuttack and others, (2009) 1 OrissaLR 198, Rajendra Kumar Routray and others v. Gourahari Pattnayak and others, (2017) 2 ILR(Cut) 600, Jashoda Mahana v. Shibashankar Mahana, (2018) 1 OrissaLR 816, Bholanath Bal and others v. Nandi Bal and others, (2018) 1 OrissaLR 173 and Grama Devati, Satabhauni Thakurani and others v. Ranga Bewa and others, (2018) 1 CurLR 227.

5. Per contra, Mr.Sahoo, learned Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that consolidation operation in the area had been closed. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted the suit. The cause of action for institution of the suit arose after closure of consolidation operation.

6. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC envisages rejection of the plaint. Order 11(d), which is relevant, is quoted hereunder:

"11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected on the following cases:

(a) to (c) xxx xxx xxx

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

xxx xxx xxx"

7. Clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

8. Jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities is well settled. In the celebrated judgment of Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh, (1973) AIR SC 2451, the apex Court held :

"We think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by