JUDGMENT : K.B. Paoda, J. - This is an application u/s 115 and 151 of the CPC for setting aside an order passed on 25-9-1975 in Original Suit No. 70 of 1973(1) passed by the Munsif, Khurda dismissing the suit on the ground that it is hit by Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The background of the civil revision is that once it had been dismissed without costs by me on 1-2-1977. Therein I had observed thus: I have heard the parties in full but the case was adjourned since the learned Counsel for the Petitioner wanted to cite some rulings in support of his case, that the civil suit will remain pending disposal of the O.L.R. Case. In the instant case, the very basis of the Plaintiff's claim of bhag-tenantship under some of the Defendants is out and out a matter to be dealt with by the revenue Court. Somehow it escaped the notice of the office; or else it would not have been entertained. Now the dispute is before the revenue authority. After the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure terminated in favour of Defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff should have gone to the revenue Court for the relief he wanted. When the Court below applied his mind after hearing the parties, the law being very clear, he passed the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the party could not challenge the property of the order but only stated that on the date fixed for hearing of the stay petition the learned Court below should not have decided the case finally. Thereafter M.J.C. No. 41 of 1977 was filed for recalling that order and giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard on merits at length on 1-3-1977. This was allowed subject to the Petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 32/- to the opposite parties. 2. The facts in brief ale as follows: The Plaintiffs father and son - as Petitioners filed a suit for declaration that they were bhag tenants in respect of the suit properties. This suit was numbered as O.S. No. 70 of 1973(1) and filed on 19-7-1973. Therein, the prayer was for confirmation of possession of Plaintiff No. 1 or in the alternative recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the Defendants with costs. Specifically the Plaintiffs claimed to be bhag tenants in respect of plot Nos. This suit was numbered as O.S. No. 70 of 1973(1) and filed on 19-7-1973. Therein, the prayer was for confirmation of possession of Plaintiff No. 1 or in the alternative recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the Defendants with costs. Specifically the Plaintiffs claimed to be bhag tenants in respect of plot Nos. 407 and 489 under Khata No. 111 corresponding to Sabik plot Nos. 482 and 484 situated in mouza Sanakusumi. Earlier there was a dispute between the parties for which a proceeding u/s 79 of the Orissa Tenancy Act had been initiated. But ultimately it was converted into one u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and that terminated in favour of Defendant-Respondents occasioning the suit in question. The Defendants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and themselves. On 15-9-1975 the Plaintiffs filed a petition for stay of further proceedings of the suit till disposal of the O.L.R. Case No. 1524 of 1975 which they filed before the Revenue Officer, Banpur. The learned Court below heard the counsel for both the parties and in view of the issues framed; namely, whether the Plaintiffs are the bhag tenants in respect of the suit lands and secondly whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit held that the suit is hit by Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and hence dismissed it, as not maintainable. 3. Initially the grievance of the Petitioners was that the suit having been fixed for hearing of the stay petition, the learned Court below should not have disposed of the case finally observing that he had no jurisdiction. Now it is contended that the learned lower Court should have stayed the proceeding in the civil suit pending disposal of the O.L.R. case. Be it stated here that the O.L.R. case No. 1524 of 1975 has been filed by none but the same Plaintiffs the father and the son in the civil suit, namely, O.S. No. 70 of 1973 (1). Section 15(1)(d) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 provides thus: 16.(1)(d) the existence of the landlord and tenant shall be decided Officer on an application to be filed manner by any party interested; In view of the mandatory provision in the special law, determination of relationship of landlord and tenant has to be decided by the Revenue Court and not by the Civil Court. Here, the Plaintiffs claim that they are bhag tenants in respect of the suit properties and therefore the termination of 145. Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding In favour of some of the Defendants is not binding. Thus, it clearly comes u/s 15(1)(d) of the O.L.R. Act relationship of by the Revenue in the prescribed and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. In this context, it was further contended that in view of the additional prayer for injunction the learned lower Court is not justified in balding that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The prayer for injunction in the instant case flows from the allegation and the prayer for declaration that the Plaintiffs are bhag tenants in respect of the suit properties under some of the Defendants. Consequently if the main prayer fails, the prayer for injunction also fails and it has no independent existence. The Plaintiffs conscious of this, have run to the Revenue Court for the relief. Earlier they had run to the Civil Court for the identical relief besides that or issuance of an injunction. The Plaintiffs evident wish to pursue the remedy both ways in the Civil Court as well as in the Revenue Court. Such a move on the part of the Plaintiffs in the circumstances of the case appears to be mala fide. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners cited G. Vasudeva and Anr. v. M. Chinamadu and Anr. 1972 (1) C.W.R. 218, Pandaba Sahu Vs. Banchha Palei and Another, and Madhaba Sahu Vs. Raghunath Chhotara and Others. It is unnecessary to refer to these decisions as they are not at all relevant for the disposal of the case in hand. 5. The civil revision has no merits and hence it is dismissed with cost of Rs. 200/- to opposite parties. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed