JUDGMENT : B.N. Misra, J. - Defendant No. 2 has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Cuttack confirming the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional Munsif, Cuttack. Respondents 1 to 8 are the Plaintiffs and Respondents 9(b) to 9(f) have been substituted in place of deceased Respondent No. 9 who was Defendant No. 1 in the trial court. 2. Plaintiffs case is that the homestead land described in schedule 'Ka' appended to the plaint originally belonged to the late Muli Mohapatra, the husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and rather of Plaintiffs 2 to 8. The name of the late Muli Mohapatra was recorded in the record-of-rights and he was paying rent to the ex-landlord and after abolition of the Zamindary, to the State. Muli Mohapatra died on 30-10-1963 leaving behind him the Plaintiffs as his heirs and the latter continued to remain in possession of the suit land, Plaintiffs 6 to 8 the daughters of the late Muli Mohapatra, after their marriage relinquished their interest in he suit land in favor of Plaintiffs 1 to 5. 'Kha' schedule land appended to the plaint is 2 decimals out of 23 decimals comprising 'Ka' schedule land. 'Ga' schedule land appended to the plaint includes a house standing thereon and comprises an area of 25 feet (West-East) by 24 feet (North-South) situated to the south-eastern corner and within the 'Kha' schedule land. It is stated that the Defendants without having any manner of right, title or interest in respect of the suit-lands initiated a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the 'Kha' schedule land. The late Muli Mohapatra who was then alive was not made a party to the said proceeding wherein the possession of the Defendants was declared in respect of the 'Ga' schedule land. It is asserted that the order of the criminal court in the aforesaid proceeding does not bind the Plaintiffs as they were not parties and the late Muli Mohapatra was also not a party to the said proceeding. In spite of the order passed in the proceeding the Plaintiffs claim to be in possession over the suit land. It is asserted that the order of the criminal court in the aforesaid proceeding does not bind the Plaintiffs as they were not parties and the late Muli Mohapatra was also not a party to the said proceeding. In spite of the order passed in the proceeding the Plaintiffs claim to be in possession over the suit land. The Plaintiffs have taken shelter of the Court because of the wrong order passed in the 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding and they have prayed for declaration of their right, title and interest, for confirmation of possession, in the alternative, recovery of possession and for temporary injunction until disposal of the suit. 3. The Defendants have filed a joint written statement in which they have stated that in view of the good relationship between them and the Plaintiffs as neighbours, the Plaintiffs have voluntarily left Ac. 02 decimals of land from out of suit plot No. 1033 for the purpose of being used as religious institution since the year 1935. Accordingly, the Defendants have amalgamated the said decimals of land with their homestead, have constructed a Bhagabat Ghar and have planted cocoanut trees thereon. The Defendants claim to be in exclusive possession of the aforesaid 2 decimals of land. It is stated that the Bhagabat Ghar standing on the suit land has been separately assessed in the name of Defendant No 2. The Defendants have also asserted that the suit is barred by limitation as the Defendants have been in exclusive possession of the suit land for more than twelve years to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs. It is pointed out that the particulars of the suit land as described in the plaint are not sufficient to identify the same. The Defendants have accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The learned Munsif decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs and his main findings are that the particulars of the suit land described in the plaint are sufficient to identify the same and an effective decree can' be passed and that even assuming that the Defendants were in possession of the suit land, their possession was permissive in nature and did not vest in them any title thereon. The appeal filed by the Defendant has been dismissed and the findings of the learned Munsif have been confirmed. Thereafter Defendant No. 2 has filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. The appeal filed by the Defendant has been dismissed and the findings of the learned Munsif have been confirmed. Thereafter Defendant No. 2 has filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. In course of the hearing of this appeal it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that village Bamadeipur where the suit land is situated has come under consolidation operations. There is no dispute that the suit land described in the plaint is situated in village Bamadeipur. Government Notification No. S.R.O.766/78 dated 28-6-1978 published in the extraordinary issue of the Orissa Gazette on 4-7-1978 shows that village Bamadeipur is included in the aforesaid notification u/s 3(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Therefore, now the main question, to be considered is whether, the suit and the appeal arising out of the suit have or have not abated in view of the provision contained in Section 4(4) of the Act. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that the suit land is admittedly homestead land and therefore the suit and the appeal do not abate. This contention of learned Counsel must be rejected in view of the Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jadumani Biswal Vs. Narayan Chandra Biswal (deceased by L.R.) and Others. In the aforesaid case it was held that the term 'land' used in Section 4(4) and Section 51 of the Act has been defined in Section 2(o) of the said Act to mean 'land of whatever description' and that the said definition was wide enough to include homestead land. The next question to be considered is whether the relief prayed for by the Plaintiffs in the suit can be granted by the consolidation authorities. In this case the prayer of the Plaintiffs is for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land, confirmation of possession or in the alternative, recovery of possession. The further prayer for temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit is a meaningless prayer and therefore has not been considered by the courts below. In case the Plaintiffs wanted temporary injunction, they should have moved the court under Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure. The further prayer for temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit is a meaningless prayer and therefore has not been considered by the courts below. In case the Plaintiffs wanted temporary injunction, they should have moved the court under Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure. That course has not been adopted and rightly the courts below have neither considered nor given any relief to the Plaintiffs with regard to their prayer for temporary injunction. The only prayer of the Plaintiffs, as earlier noted, relates to title and possession. Proceedings under the Act can be initiated in respect of the suit land and real and effective relief can be given by the consolidation authorities. Therefore, the present suit is clearly covered by the provision of Section 4(4) of the Act and the suit and the appeal arising therefrom must be held to have abated. 7. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The same judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside. In the circumstances of this case, parties will bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed