JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This is a Plaintiff's second appeal from the decision of the Additional District Judge, Cuttack dated 17-7-1973 passed in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 1972 reversing the decision of the Refit Suit Officer, Cuttack decreeing a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain such a plaint, and directing the plaint to be returned for presentation in the proper Court. 2. The Plaintiff is the deity, Shri Ananta Mahadev Thakur, represented by one Srimati Pitabasini Debi as marfatdar. The rent suit was instituted in the Court of the Rent Suit Officer for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the suit land for 1373 Sal amounting to Rs. 287/-. 3. The Defendants raised various pleas, namely, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the Plaintiff, that the rent claimed is illegal and excessive and lastly, in the alternative, that rent had been paid in full. 4. The Rent Suit Officer decreed the suit in part after scaling down the rent claimed to 6 mounds of paddy per acre per annum by holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that rent had not been paid as alleged. 5. The Defendants appealed. The appellate Court without going into the merits of the appeal, dealt with one point of jurisdiction. He held that the suit for recovery of arrears of rent being exclusively cognizable by the Revenue Officer u/s 15(1) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 as amended by Act 13 of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the jurisdiction to entertain the suit u/s 193 of the Orissa Tenancy Act was ousted, and, accordingly, directed return of the plaint for presentation in proper Court. 6. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the Rent Suit Officer had jurisdiction to - entertain the plaint for recovery of arrears of rent. I will now proceed to examine the correctness of this contention. 7. The Act came into force on 11-8-1964 when it received President's assent though it is published on 17-8-1965. The plaint was filed on 31-3-1966. The Act being prospective in operation will govern the institution of the present suit. I will now proceed to examine the correctness of this contention. 7. The Act came into force on 11-8-1964 when it received President's assent though it is published on 17-8-1965. The plaint was filed on 31-3-1966. The Act being prospective in operation will govern the institution of the present suit. Section 3 of the Act runs as follows: 3 Act to override other laws-Save as otherwise provided the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law custom or usage or agreement, decree or order of Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act runs as follows: 15. Recovery of rent and dispute between landlord and raiyat or tenant: (1) Any claim for recovery of arrears of rent by a landlord and any dispute between a landlord and his raiyat or tenant, as the case may be, as regards: (a) the quantum of the rent payable; or (b) tenant's possession of the land and his rights to the benefits under this Act; or (c) the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant u/s 14; shall be decided by the Revenue Officer on an application to be filed by any party interested: Provided that an application in respect of a claim for recovery of arrears of rent shall be filed before the Revenue Officer in the prescribed manner within one calendar year from the date on which such arrear falls due and in other cases within sixty days from the date on which the dispute arises; or (d) the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. (2) On receipt of the application under Sub-section (1) the Revenue Officer may, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, direct the payment of arrears of rent, if any, found due or, determine the quantum of rent under Clause (a) or in the cases under Clauses (b), (c) and (d) there of order the tenant by a notice served in the prescribed manner and specifying the grounds on which the order is made to cases, to cultivate the land, (It is unnecessary to quote the other provisions of this section.) On perusal of the aforesaid sections the position is clear that a claim for recovery of arrears of rent by landlord is exclusively cognizable by the Revenue Officer u/s 15(1) of the Act. This Court expressed the same view in the case of Gopinath Dey v. A.D.M. Puri 37 (1971) C.L.T. 637. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, contends that there is no provision in the Act or Rules framed thereunder laying down the procedure to be followed in execution of the decree for rent which may be ultimately passed by the Revenue Officer. Accordingly, in absence of any provision being made as regards execution of lent decree or order passed by the Revenue Officer ?for payment of the rent, Section 15 became ineffective for all practical purposes and by itself unworkable. In result the jurisdiction of the rent Court under the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act to entertain the plaint for recovery of rent and to execute the rent decree is not ousted by Section 15(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, however, urges that the Revenue Officer has been vested with, such power for execution of his own order for arrears of rent and as such the provision of Section 15 of the Act completely oust the jurisdiction of the rent Court under the Orissa Tenancy Act. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the various Act and Rules framed thereunder and other laws to see if the Revenue Officer has power for execution of his order for payment of rent. 9. u/s 15 of the Act, extracted above, the Revenue Officer is to entertain an application for recovery of arrears of rent and is empowered to make the enquiry into the claim and direct payment of arrears of rent. Section 57 provides the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Officer and runs as follows: 57. Procedure to be followed by Revenue Officers-(1) The Revenue Officer shall have the same powers in making enquires under this Act as are vested in Courts in respect of the' following matters under the CPC 5 of 1908, in trying a suit, namely: (a) admission of evidence by affidavits; (b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of documents; and (d) any other matter that truly be prescribed. (2) The Revenue Officer shall have power to award costs in proceedings before him in accordance with rules made in,that behalf. (2) The Revenue Officer shall have power to award costs in proceedings before him in accordance with rules made in,that behalf. (3) The procedure to be followed by the Revenue Officer in holding enquiries or in the matter of execution of orders passed under this Act shall be as may be prescribed. Section 65 of the Act runs as follows: 65. Execution of orders-(1) The authority passing an order under any of the provisions of this Act may on his own motion or on application in the prescribed manner direct that possession of any land forming the subject-matter of such an order be delivered to the person entitled to such possession and take such steps as may be necessary to give effect to his orders. (2) Penalties and other dues, if any payable to Government under the provisions of this Act shall be releasable his arrears of land revenue. There are no other provisions of the Act bearing on the point. 10. It is now necessary to refer to the relevant Rules in this connection. Rule 16 provides that an application u/s 15 shall be filed in the same manner as, provided under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 10. Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 10 deal with manner of presentation of application and number of copies to be filed. Rule 41 runs as follows: 41. Costs under Sub-section (2) of Section 57-The Revenue Officer may award costs to the successful party not exceeding the total amount of the Court fees paid on the application or petition or memorandum of appeal subject to a minimum of five rupees. 11. It is clear from the above provisions of the Act and Rules that there is no procedure provided for execution of orders for payment of rent or for decree for rent. There is a residuary section, which is Section 76 and it runs as follow: 76. Power to remove doubts and difficulties-If any doubt or difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may as occasion may require by order do anything not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, which appears to them necessary for purposes of removing the doubt or difficulty. Power to remove doubts and difficulties-If any doubt or difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Government may as occasion may require by order do anything not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, which appears to them necessary for purposes of removing the doubt or difficulty. The learned Counsel for the Appellant brought to my notice G.O. No. 28931-Re-8/70/R which is printed at page 218 of "A Compilation of Circulars and Orders", It is a letter from the Deputy Secretary to the Government to the Land Reforms Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack dated 26th May, 1970; It is there stated: For recovery of arrears of rent, the landlord if is not the Government, has to go to a revenue Court. In other words, in the areas Government under the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 he should file a rent suit u/s 193 of the said Act. Similarly in other areas where other Tenancy Acts or rules are in force, he must seek redress in the forum prescribed by such laws or rules. When no such laws or rules exist at present the obvious remedy will be to go to a Civil Court. Relying upon this it is contended that the Government being aware of the difficulty in not providing a procedure for execution of order or decree for rent passed by the Revenue Officer u/s 15(1) of the Act directed that rent suits shall be filed under the provisions of Orissa Tenancy Act and this amounts to acknowledgment that Section 15(1) of the Act is unworkable. In the circumstances, it is said that the plaint was properly presented before Rent Suit Officer. 12. It appears from the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, referred to above, that the local or special law, that is, the Act is silent in the matter of execution procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, unlike Section 192 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. The question now to be considered is whether CPC will govern the proceedings of the Revenue Officer in regard to matters for which no provision has been made in the Act. Section 4 of the CPC runs as follows: 4. The question now to be considered is whether CPC will govern the proceedings of the Revenue Officer in regard to matters for which no provision has been made in the Act. Section 4 of the CPC runs as follows: 4. Savings-(1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary; - nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the proposition contained in Sub-section (1) nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any remedy which a landholder or landlord may have under any law for the time being in force for the recovery of rent of agricultural land from the produce of such land. Section 5 of the CPC runs as follows: 5. Application of the Code to Revenue Courts-(1) Where any Revenue Courts are governed by the provisions of this Code in those matters of procedure upon which any special enactment applicable to them is silent, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette declare that any portions of those provisions which are not expressly made applicable by this Code shall not apply to those Courts, or shall only apply to them with such modifications as the State Government may prescribe. (2) "Revenue Court" in Sub-section (1) means a Court having jurisdiction under any local law to entertain suits or other proceedings relating to the rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural purposes, but does not include a Civil Court having original jurisdiction under this Code to try such suits or proceedings as being suits or proceedings of a civil nature. Reading these 2 provisions, it appears to me that the application of the CPC is not barred where the special or local law is silent. This silence in the matter of application of CPC does not mean that CPC does not apply because, as otherwise, the requirement in Section 5(1), CPC of the State Government issuing a notification declaring that all or any of the provisions of CPC shall not apply to revenue Courts will be meaningless. This silence in the matter of application of CPC does not mean that CPC does not apply because, as otherwise, the requirement in Section 5(1), CPC of the State Government issuing a notification declaring that all or any of the provisions of CPC shall not apply to revenue Courts will be meaningless. Normally CPC will govern Revenue Courts unless its application is excluded by the special or local law or by notification issued u/s 5(1), CPC by the State Government, because Revenue Courts are in a sense, a species of civil Courts in that they decide purely civil questions between persons seeking their civil rights. The Revenue Officer acting in exercise of his powers u/s 15 of the Act is a Revenue Court as he possesses all the indicia of a Court and as such, the CPC will apply and he can avail of the execution procedure provided in CPC in the matter of execution of his own orders for payment of or decree for rent. Thus, the Act and the Rules framed thereunder coupled within the execution procedure provided in the CPC which is applicable to the proceedings for execution of bidets of Revenue Officer cover the entire field envisaged by Sections 192 and 193 and other allied provisions of judicial procedure enacted in the Orissa Tenancy Act in the matter of filing of rent suits and execution of rent decrees. In consequence, by reason of Section 3 of the Act the jurisdiction of the Rent Suit Officer is completely ousted arid the same is vested in the Revenue Officer tinder Section 15(1) of the Act. In my opinion, the conclusion of the lower appellate Court that the Rent Suit Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint of the rent suit was correct. His consequential direction for return of the plaint for presentation before the Revenue Officer must necessarily be upheld. In view of my aforesaid conclusion. I am not called upon to deal with the application for tendering additional evidence filed by the Defendants-Respondents under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, on merits. 13. In result, the sole point urged having failed, the appeal is dismissed. But in the peculiar circumstances of the case without costs. Final Result : Dismissed