JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This Second Appeal is by the Defendant. It arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiffs for the following reliefs, namely, (a) for declaration of title in respect of the suit land; (b) for confirmation of possession of the suit land; (c) for a declaration that the entry in favour of the Defendant as a sikimi raiyat in the record of rights is wrong, illegal and fraudulent; and (d) for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from committing any waste or damage to the suit properties. The Defendant admits that the Plaintiffs are the occupancy tenants in respect of the suit lands, but claims a subordinate tenancy interest, that is to say, an under raiyati interest on the ground of the suit lands having been let out to him on Dhulibhag basis. He further contends that the entry in the record of rights of 1963 recording him as a sikimi raiyat in respect of the suit lands under the Plaintiffs is a correct one. 3. The suit was filed in the year 1965. During the pendency of that suit in the trial Court, the Defendant filed an application u/s 4(5) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Revenue Officer for declaration of his right of a raiyat. This proceeding before the Revenue Officer was registered as O.L.R. Case No. 42 of 1967. He proved his application u/s 4(5) of the Act in the civil Court which has been marked Ex. E. On the basis of that proceeding u/s 4(5) of the Act the Defendant raised a contention that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. 4. Both the Courts below come to the conclusion that the civil Court has jurisdiction to try this suit. They have also concurrently found that the Defendant was not in possession of the suit land as bhag tenant under the Plaintiffs and that the entry in the record of rights is, accordingly, incorrect. 5. The only question raised here is that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, inasmuch as Section 67 of the Act is a bar. 5. The only question raised here is that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, inasmuch as Section 67 of the Act is a bar. The Appellant has filed an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC tendering a copy of the judgment passed in O.L.R. Case No. 42 of 1967 in proof of the fact that the proceeding has been terminated in his favour. This application is objected to on behalf of the Respondents. Before proceeding further with the main contention raised in this appeal, I will first of all dispose of this application for additional evidence. The judgment of the trial Court was delivered on 29-9-1967 and that of the appellate Court was delivered, on 5-9-1969. The proceeding under the Act had commenced before disposal of the suit by the trial Court, had not been finally disposed of even by the date of delivery of the judgment by the lower appellate Court, and was disposed of in favour of the Defendant-Appellant on 22-9-1969. This is a public document and was not in existence before disposal of the suit by both the Courts below. There is no doubt about the relevancy of this document to the sole point of jurisdiction raised here. The document obviously could not have been produced earlier to 5-9-1969. Accordingly, the application for additional evidence is allowed and this additional piece of document is admitted and marked as Ex. F. 6. The section which disposes a bar on the jurisdiction of the civil Court is Section 67 of the Act. That section reads as follows: Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding so far as it relates to any matter which any officer or other competent authority is A( empowered by or under this Act to decide. That section reads as follows: Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding so far as it relates to any matter which any officer or other competent authority is A( empowered by or under this Act to decide. Section 12 which is relevant for the purpose of present discussion reads as follows: (1) Any dispute between a raiyat and his landlord relating to (i) the landlord?s right to evict the raiyat u/s 8, or (ii) the rights conferred under Sections 4, 9 and 10 or (iii) the raiyat?s right to possession of the land and his rights to the benefits under this Act, shall be decided by the Revenue Officer on an application to be filed by any person interested; Provided that such application shall be filed before the Revenue Officer in the prescribed manner within sixty days from the date on which the dispute arises. (2) On receipt of an application under Sub-section (1) the Revenue Officer shall, after making such enquiry as may be necessary, pass such orders as he deems fit. (3) The Revenue Officer may take such further steps as he may consider necessary to give effect to the orders passed under Sub-section (2). Any matter which a Revenue Officer under the Act is empowered to decide is excluded from the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Section 12 of the Act has laid down that all disputes between a landlord and a raiyat, who is deemed to be one such u/s 4 of the Act, with regard to the latter?s right to possession of the land and his right to the benefits under the Act shall be decided by the Revenue Officer who &hall determine them after holding an enquiry. Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act empowers a Revenue Officer to declare, after such enquiry as may be necessary, a person who is a sub-tenant or an under-raiyat referred to in Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) thereof, that is to say, a person who immediately before the commencement of the Act was in personal cultivation of any land in respect of which he has been recorded as sub-tenant and under-raiyat in the record-of-right sunder any law in force in any part of the State, to be a raiyat in respect of such land for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act. Necessarily, therefore, in order to make such a declaration, the Revenue Officer has to be satisfied on enquiry if the person making an, application for declaration of his raiyati status for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act, was an under-raiyat or sub-tenant recorded as such in the record-of-rights and was in personal cultivation of such land immediately before the commencement of the Act. The questions, in the instant case, which the Revenue Officer has to determine are (a) whether the Defendant is a sub-tenant or under-raiyat under the Plaintiffs; (b) whether he has been recorded as such in the record-of-rights of 1963 and in deciding with that question, he has necessarily to be satisfied if the entry in the said record-of-rights is correct or incorrect, and (c) whether the Defendant was in personal cultivating possession of the suit land immediately before the commencement of the Act. These questions are, therefore, excluded from the jurisdiction of the civil Court. The reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs in the suit comprise the aforesaid questions. The only question the civil Courtis free to decide is declaration of their title, which is admitted by the Defendant. The relief of permanent injunction is dependent upon the final determination of the aforesaid questions falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer and therefore cannot be immediately granted. Thus the civil Court, before finally disposing the suit before it, must necessarily await the decision of the other questions which, as indicated above, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer. 7. It appears from the aforesaid discussion that some matters are cognizable by the civil Court and some other matters are cognizable exclusively by the Revenue Officer. The matters within the respective jurisdiction of the civil Court and of the Revenue Officer being interlinked the civil suit is to be stayed until the final determination of the matters by Revenue Officer. It is stated that the Revenue Officer has decided O.L.R. Case 42/67 but the same is pending before the appellate forum. The matters within the respective jurisdiction of the civil Court and of the Revenue Officer being interlinked the civil suit is to be stayed until the final determination of the matters by Revenue Officer. It is stated that the Revenue Officer has decided O.L.R. Case 42/67 but the same is pending before the appellate forum. Therefore, or set aside the decisions of the Courts below and all proceedings before the civil Court with effect from 5-1-1966, the date when the application u/s 4(5) of the Act was filed by the Defendant before the Revenue Officer, and direct that the suit be stayed till the final disposal of O.L.R. Case 42/67 through the entire hierarchy of tribunals provided under the Act, and thereafter to proceed dispose of the suit, accepting the final findings in O.L.R. Case 42/67, in accordance with law. This is in accord with the procedure adopted by this Court in the case of Bhima Padhi Vs. Venkateswara Swamy Varu and Another, . 8. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances, there would be no order for costs. Final Result : Allowed