Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Savita Jain, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent and perused the record.

2. Facts of the present case are that petitioner-plaintiff/Ratti Pal has filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 218 of 2010 with the following main prayer :

Þoknh o Áfroknh 4 rk 6 ds i{k esa fo:) Áfroknh 1 rk 3 fMxzh LFkk;h fu”ks/kkKk ikfjr djrs gq, oknh o Áfroknh 4 rk 6 ds oknxzLr Hkwfe ij ‘kkafriw.kZ dCtk n[ky o miHkksxkfèkdkj esa gLr{ksi djus ls ml ij dCtk o fuekZ.k djus ls Áfroknh 1 rk 3 dks lnk loZnk ds fy;s euk fd;k tkosA

3. Further, in the said suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction under order 39 Rule 1 CPC has been moved. By an order dated 5.2.2010, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Sadar, Pratapgarh, has granted ex parte temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant has put appearance in the matter in question and after hearing the parties concerned by order dated 5.10.2010, Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Court No. 10, Pratapgarh has rejected the temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2010 passed by trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal (Misc. Civil Appeal No. 116 of 2010), by order dated 20.3.2012, the appellate Court had rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that as a notification under the relevant provision of U.P. Consolidation Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been issued, hence the suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

5. In view of the abovesaid factual background, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

6. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the core question which is to be decided in the present case is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner on the land in dispute is maintainable or not in view of the relevant notification issued under the provisions of Act, 1953.

7. Section 5 (2) of the Act relevant for the purpose reads as under :

“(2) Upon the said publication the notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4, the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely:

(a) every proceedings for the correction of record and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration or rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or, authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated.”

Provided..........................................

Provided..........................................

8. This provision of the Act provides that upon publication of notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act certain type of suits or proceedings pending before any Court or authority shall abate.

9. Thus, it excludes the jurisdiction of the Court or authority which are otherwise, empowered to decide the said suit or proceedings. It is well-settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a Court must be strictly construed as observed by the Apex Court, in the case of Abdul Wahid Khan v. Bhawani and others, AIR 1966 SC 1718.

10. A bare reading of Section 5 (2) of the Act indicates that kinds of cases liable to be abated upon publication of notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act are clearly specified, viz. ;

“(I) Proceedings for correction of records,

(II) Suits or proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land.

(III) Suits or proceedings for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceeding can