JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - The Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 18 of 1986 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Athagarh are the Petitioners in this revision. They had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC praying for injunction against the Defendants which having been refused by the learned Subordinate Judge, Athagarh, they preferred Misc. Appeal No. 92 of 1986 in the Court of the District Judge, Cuttack. The learned 1st. Additional District Judge, Cuttack, who heard the matter, confirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge against which this revision has been filed. The facts necessary for the adjudication of this revision may be briefly stated as follows: 2. The Plaintiffs, who jointly filed the suit, claimed to be the under raiyats in respect of the suit land. Their case is that the deity Defendant No. 1, was the intermediary, under whom they were continuing as under raiyats and that their status as under-raiyats has been recognised from time to time by the deity and its Marfatdars. Their right having been interfered with by the Defendants 3 to 7 they have filed the suit praying for the following reliefs: (a) the Plaintiffs are sikmi-raiyats in: respect of the suit lands and are entitled to be recorded as such in all records of the Defendant No. 1, (b) the Plaintiffs were raiyats in respect of the suit lands under Defendant No. 1 and the intermediary interest of Defendants 2 to 6 having been abolished, the Plaintiffs are liable to pay rent for the suit land to Defendant No. I, according to the provisionsof the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1952;and (c) the Defendants Nos. 2 to 7 and all those claiming under them including the Defendant Nos. 8 to 11 be permanently injuncted from coming upon the suit lands. 3. The learned trial Court while holding that the Plaintiffs have been continuing in possession of the suit properties and that the Defendants have been disturbing their right on some prevaricating pleas, refused to grant the injunction on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in the civil Court. The learned lower appellate Court also confirmed the same finding by saying that the suit as framed is cognizable by a revenue Court and therefore, the Plaintiffs have no prima facie case to be entitled to an order of injunction. 4. Mr. The learned lower appellate Court also confirmed the same finding by saying that the suit as framed is cognizable by a revenue Court and therefore, the Plaintiffs have no prima facie case to be entitled to an order of injunction. 4. Mr. S. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, urged that the learned Courts below have not exercised the jurisdiction vested in them and committed a material irregularity and illegality in exercise of their jurisdiction by refusing to grant injunction on the erroneous assumption that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to him~ it is the civil Court alone which can entertain such a suit and therefore should have granted injunction in the suit. Mr. R. Ch. Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that both the Courts below having refused to grant injunction, the same cannot be interfered with u/s 115 of the CPC Code. He further contended that the reliefs, as prayed for is cognizable by the revenue authorities as per the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and, therefore, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the prayer for injunction. Mr. Mohanty, further contended that the various documents referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners should not be looked into as the maintainability or otherwise of the suit should be decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint alone which, according to him, clearly establish that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit 5. Before going into the merits of the question as to whether the suit as framed is entertainable by the civil Court, I would like to go to the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mohanty as to the authority of this Court to revise the order in question in exercise of its powers u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code. It is firmly established in law that any error committed by a Court subordinate to the High Court, relating to exercise or jurisdiction resulting a failure of justice or causing irreparable injury to a party can be corrected by this Court in exercise of its powers u/s 115 of the CPC Code. It is firmly established in law that any error committed by a Court subordinate to the High Court, relating to exercise or jurisdiction resulting a failure of justice or causing irreparable injury to a party can be corrected by this Court in exercise of its powers u/s 115 of the CPC Code. If according to law, the ci vii Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question, but the Courts below refused to grant injunction on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it would be a clear case of failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the said Court. The question? would, therefore, depend upon the decision as to whether the suit was maintainable in the civil Court. 6. It is well established- in law that after coming into force the Orissa Land Reforms Act, any dispute relating to the adjudication of matters which is provided In the said Act, must be taken to be beyond the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain. In other words the forum prescribed in the O.L.R. Act would alone be entitled to adjudicate and decide those disputes which the Act authorises them to decide. In that event, the jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be invoked and shall be taken to have been ousted. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse and found out if the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. 7. As already stated, the main relief which the Plaintiffs claimed in the suit is for declaration of their status as sikmi raiyats or under-raiyats. The work ?under raiyat? or sikmi raiyats has not been defined in O.L.R. Act. But under the Orissa Tenancy Act; under-raiyats are one of the four classes of tenants. This being a civil right, ordinarily the civil Court should have jurisdiction to decide a dispute where the status of an under-raiyat? is called in question, subject of course to any provision in the O.L.R. Act for a decision of such disputes. According to Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, in Sections 12 and 15 of the O.L.R. Act there are provisions which enable the Revenue Court to adjudicate the disputes involved in the suit. The aforesaid contention does not appear to be sound in law. According to Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, in Sections 12 and 15 of the O.L.R. Act there are provisions which enable the Revenue Court to adjudicate the disputes involved in the suit. The aforesaid contention does not appear to be sound in law. Section 15 of the O.L.R. Act provides for decision of disputes between a landlord and his raiyat or tenant as the case may be, as regards the quantum of the rent payable; tenant?s possession of the land and his rights to the benefits under this Act; the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy of ?a tenant u/s 14 of the O.L.R. Act; and the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. An under-raiyat, who has not been declared to be a raiyat continues to hold his status as an under raiyat. Therefore, the disputes raised in this Court cannot be called a dispute between the landlord and a raiyat. ?Tenant? as defined in the O.L.R. Act means a person, who has no right in the land of another but personally cultivates such land on payment of rent in cash or kind. The status of an under-raiyat is quite different than that of a tenant. The status of an under raiyat is something more than that of a tenant as he has an interest in the land. Therefore, the present dispute cannot be called as a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. Therefore, Section 15 of the O.L.R. Act has no application whatsoever and cannot be attracted for deciding the disputes raised in the suit or to give relief as prayed for by the Plaintiffs. So far as Section 12 is concerned, it empowers the Revenue Officer to decide any dispute between a raiyat and his landlord relating to the landlord?s right to evict the raiyat u/s 8 of the Act; the rights conferred under Sections 4, 9 and 10;and the raiyats right to possession of the land and his right to the benefits under this Act. The declaration of status of an under-raiyat under a landlord would not come within the purview of Section 12 of the Act. As already stated the Plaintiffs in the suit have not acquired the status of a raiyat inasmuch as they have not been so declared under the provisions of the Act. The declaration of status of an under-raiyat under a landlord would not come within the purview of Section 12 of the Act. As already stated the Plaintiffs in the suit have not acquired the status of a raiyat inasmuch as they have not been so declared under the provisions of the Act. Thus relief as to the declaration of status of an under-raiyat sought for in the suit is not available to be granted under the provisions of Orissa Land Reforms Act by a Revenue Officer. In this view of the matter, the civil Court would continue to have jurisdiction to decide the aforesaid dispute. 8. It has been next contended by Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, that the second relief alternatively prayed in the suit that the Plaintiffs are raiyats in respect of the suit lands under the State of Orissa inasmuch as the intermediary interest of Defendant No. 1, the deity, stands abolished as provided in the Orissa Estates Abolition Act is also cognizable by the civil Court. If the suit with respect to the first relief is held to be maintainable in the Civil Court, the suit cannot be thrown out as not maintainable, because further examination as to whether the other reliefs if any, as prayed for by the Plaintiffs in the suit, is available to be granted by the civil Court or not, would not take away its Jurisdiction. In view of my finding that the suit is maintainable in respect of one of the reliefs prayed for in the suit, the further question as to whether the alternative relief prayed by the Plaintiffs is available to be granted by the civil Court does not require to be decided at this stage. If such an objection is taken at the trial, the Court may decide the question in accordance with the Jaw. 9. As already stated the Courts below have found that the Plaintiffs are in physical possession 0{ the suit lands and, interim injunction as prayed for was refused solely on the ground that the suit is pot maintainable in the civil Court have already held, that the suit cannot be said to be not maintainable and it therefore follows that the Plaintiffs have got a prima facie case to be entitled to an order of injunction. I would accordingly, set aside the impugned orders and allow the relief of temporary- injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiffs, 10. This revision is accordingly allowed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed