Civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters showing procedural irregularities in revenue court decisions, even if some claims are governed by the OLR Act.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Memo of appearance of Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Opposite Parties filed in Court is taken on record.

3. Order dated 25th July, 2023 (Annexure-9) passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in Civil Revision No.3 of 2023 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby order dated 18th January, 2023 (Annexure-7) passed by learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Cuttack in Civil Suit No. 112 of 2019-I, has been set aside.

4. Civil Suit No.112 of 2019-I has been filed for the following reliefs.

“27. That the Plaintiffs therefore pray :

A) That a decree declaring the partition effected in Case no.37 of 2016 U/s 19 (1)(C) of the ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT to be without jurisdiction, illegal and void may be passed;

B) That a decree declaring the registered sale deed Nos.2202 and 2203 D.6.7.2018 and Sale deed no.2586 D.10.8.2018 of the Registering Officer, Jagatpur to be illegal, invalid and not binding against the Plaintiffs may be passed;

C) That a decree for perpetual injunction may be passed against D. nos.5 and 6 restraining them from coming upon the disputed property described in Schedule – ‘A’ below and making any construction thereon;

D) That a decree for costs of the sit may be passed against the defendants;

E) That the Plaintiffs may be granted such other relief or reliefs to which they may be found entitled under law and equity.”

5. On receiving summons, Defendants appeared. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of validity of an order passed under Section 19(1)(c) of the Odisha Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short the ‘OLR Act’). Plaintiffs filed objection to the same. Learned trial Court considering the case of the parties, rejected the petition, vide order under Annexure-7. Assailing the same, the Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 preferred Civil Revision No.3 of 2023 and the impugned order has been passed under Annexure-9 setting aside the order passed under Annexure-7 and granting liberty to the Plaintiffs-Petitioners to redress their grievances against the order passed by the Tahasildar, Tangi- Choudwar under Section 19(1)(c) of the OLR Act before competent appellate authority under the said Act.

6. The matter was listed on 1st December, 2023 for admission. On the said date, Defendant Nos.5 and 6 (Opposite Parties herein) entered appearance through Caveat. A preliminary objection was raised with regard to maintainability of a CMP (under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) against an order rejecting a plaint.

7. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioners, in response to this said objection, relied upon a decision in the case of Frost International Limited Vs. Milan Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another , reported in (2022) 8 SCC 633 , wherein it is held as under:-

“27. Therefore, we hold that the High Court was not right in observing that the Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and it could not have allowed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and thereby reversed the order of the trial court and finally disposed of the suit. In fact, the High Court has failed to appreciate the second proviso to Section 115 (Orissa Amendment) in its true perspective. The Revisional Court, being the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, can reverse an order which would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding. That is exactly what has been done by the Revisional Court being the District Court