JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff are the Petitioners in this civil revision against an order of the leaned Munsif, Puri that the suit has abated u/s 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act'). 2. This Civil revision was admittedly filed beyond the period of limitation for which an application for condonation of delay was filed accompanied by a medical certificate. Notice was issued on the question of limitation and the opposite parties entered appearance on 2-1-1985. This fact of appearance has been noted in the order-sheet of the case only on 25-7-1985. Consequently the question of limitation came up for consideration on 23-1-1985, this Court passed the order that none appeared for opposite parties in spite of notice. Thus, although the opposite parties had entered appearance, they did not get opportunity of being heard in the matter of limitation and the delay was condoned ex parte. Mr. N.C. Misra, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, submitted chat on this sole ground the order ought to be recalled and the civil revision ought to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is now well settled that ex parte condonation of delay can be questioned by a party after his appearance. The same principle is also applicable to this case where reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the opposite parties on 23-1-1985. The order is accordingly recalled. 3. I called upon Mr. Mishra to satisfy me how the grounds taken in the petition for condonation of delay are not justified. Although the opposite parties appeared in this civil revision on 2-1-1985, a whisper has not been made till date challenging the assertion in the petition for condonation of delay for long one year nine months. In such circumstance, this Court was justified on perusing the ground taken in the petition on affidavit supported by medical certificate that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The delay is accordingly condoned subject to payment of Rs. 50/- as costs to the appearing opposite parties which is paid by Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, to Mr. Misra the learned Counsel for the opposite parties in Court today. 4. The delay is accordingly condoned subject to payment of Rs. 50/- as costs to the appearing opposite parties which is paid by Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, to Mr. Misra the learned Counsel for the opposite parties in Court today. 4. Now coming to the merit of the civil revision, I find that there was a previous suit by the Defendants opposite parties which was ordered to have abated u/s 4(4) of the Act. It is not disputed that the present suit has been filed much after the area was notified to come under consolidation operation u/s 3 of the Act. Thus, Section 4(4) of the Act is not applicable to such a case. This section is only applicable to suits and proceedings pending before the Court on the date the area is notified to come under the consolidation area. The very fact of application of Section 4(4) of the Act to this case discloses non application of judicial mind which is apparent on the face of the order itself. On that short ground the impugned order is to be set aside. However, an order which can otherwise be justified ought not to be interfered with merely because a wrong law has been described in the order. Therefore, I called upon Mr. Misra to satisfy me that the suit would otherwise be incompetent. 5. Mr. N.C. Misra relied upon Section 51(2) of the Act which provides that no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an officer or authority empowered under the Act is competent to decide. In this suit, as yet no written statement has been filed. The issues have also not been settled. It is been known that matters to be involved in a, suit would demand upon the settlement of the issues. There may be cases where lack, of jurisdiction on the question of law only would be an issue. Order 14, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, clearly provides that such issues can be decided piece-meal although the normal procedure for decision of a suit is that all issue shall be answered together. When the Defendant have not yet filed their written statement, it cannot be said that the matter requiring decision in the suit can be decided by an authority under the Act. 6. When the Defendant have not yet filed their written statement, it cannot be said that the matter requiring decision in the suit can be decided by an authority under the Act. 6. The suit is one for permanent injunction on the basis of possession of the Plaintiffs if the Plaintiffs possession is found by the trial court to permanent injunction may be granted under the Specific Relief Act, depending upon the facts and circumstance, of the case. Though right, title and interest of a person in respect of any land can be decided by an authority under the Act, question of injunction cannot be decided by such authority. The right title and interest have their own connotation in the legal field. In any case it may happen that the Defendant may admit the possession of the Plaintiffs and yet claim title to the property for defeating the suit. That situation has not arisen as yet. When the Plaintiffs asset possession and there is no material to controvert the possession of the Plaintiffs as asserted in the plaint, the matter to be decided by any consolidation authority cannot be determined at this Stage. Besides it has been settled by this Court that the Civil Court shall not entertain a suit in respect of the reliefs which can be granted by the consolidation authorities. Relief of injunction cannot be granted by the consolidation authorities. The suit to that extent cannot be thrown out. In case the relief cannot be granted without any finding on right, title and interest, the Court may consider to stay its hand awaiting the decision of the competent authority in that regard. It cannot dismiss the suit by attracting Section 51(2) of the Act since the question of injunction cannot be decided by the authorities under the Act. 7. Thus, Section 4(4) of the Act is not attracted and before the issues are settled, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the entertainment of the suit is barred u/s 5(2) of the Act. The order is, accordingly, not sustainable in law and has been, passed in exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Final Result : Dismissed