JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Plaintiff in O. S. No. 132 of 1982 (1) of the Court of the Munsif, Bhadrak has filed this revision petition impeaching the order of the Court dated 25-10-1984. By the said order the Court directed, inter alia, that the suit shall be kept pending for decision on the claim for damages till decision of the authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The facts relevant to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus: The Petitioner filed the aforementioned suit against the opp. parties seeking two reliefs: (i) For permanent injunction against opposite party No. 1 (Defendant No. 1) not to interfere with his possession; and (ii) for award of damages against opp. party No. 1 (Defendant No. 1) for causing damage to the paddy seedlings on a portion of the suit land. The Plaintiff claimed to have title over the suit property on the basis of purchase from Defendants 2 to 4 (opp. parties 2 to 4). According to him the properties had been allotted to his vendors in a decree in a previous suit. The opp party No. l on the other hand took the stand that he was in possession of the entire suit property in his own right and the decree in the previous suit which was passed on the basis of a compromise, was invalid, inoperative and 'not binding on him. 3. During pendency of the .suit, the disputed property having come within the notification issued u/s 3 of the Act, the Defendant No. 1 (opp. party No. 1) filed a petition stating that the suit should be held to have abated u/s 4 (4) of the Act. The Petitioner objected to the said petition of the ground that the reliefs of permanent injunction and award of damages were not within competence of the authorities under the Act and, therefore, the suit is to continue in the civil Court. As it appears from the impugned order, the trial Court accepted the position that the suit does not abate u/s 4 (4) of the Act, relying on the decisions of this Court reported in Jadunath Mallik v. . Sisirkanta Mahapatra and two others 55 (1983) C.L.T. 164 and Duruju Mallik and etc. Vs. Krupasindhu Swain and Others etc.. As it appears from the impugned order, the trial Court accepted the position that the suit does not abate u/s 4 (4) of the Act, relying on the decisions of this Court reported in Jadunath Mallik v. . Sisirkanta Mahapatra and two others 55 (1983) C.L.T. 164 and Duruju Mallik and etc. Vs. Krupasindhu Swain and Others etc.. The position also appears to have been conceded by the counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-Petitioner. Notwithstanding the aforesaid finding the learned Judge passed the order to await the decision of the Consolidation authorities before disposal of the suit taking the view that for the purpose of considering the relief regarding award of damages the question of title and possession are to be enquired into which the Court felt was not within its competence. The Court referred to the decision of this Court reported in Srinibas Jena and Others Vs. Janardan Jena and Others in support of this view. 4. From the facts narrated in the foregoing paragraphs the moot question that arises for consideration is whether the Court below was justified in passing the order to stay disposal of the suit till completion of the consolidation operation in respect of the suit land. The answer in the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view is to be in the negative. The case of Srinibas Jena (supra) on which the Court placed reliance, is clearly distinguishable. That was a: case arising from the suit for declaration of title, for possession and claim for damages. This Court held that the suit abated in part, that is, in respect of the reliefs of declaration of title and possession. On such finding the Court held that the ancillary relief of claim for damages could appropriately be considered after the questions of title and possession were decided in the consolidation operation. It is worth acting here that principal question under consideration before the Court in that case was the effect of the order of abatement u/s 4 (4) of the Act. On that point the Court held that the effect of abatement of the suit u/s 4 (4) is that the suit is completely destroyed and it does not revive after closure of the consolidation proceedings. That is not a question which is relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding. On that point the Court held that the effect of abatement of the suit u/s 4 (4) is that the suit is completely destroyed and it does not revive after closure of the consolidation proceedings. That is not a question which is relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding. Any observation made therein regarding stay of the suit must be understood to be made in the background of the facts and circumstances of that case. In the present case, the trial Court was clearly in error in holding that even if the suit did not abate u/s 4 (4), it had no jurisdiction to consider the question Of title and interest in respect of the suit property due to pendency of the consolidation proceeding. The position has been made amply clear in the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rahas Bewa v. Kanduri Charan Sutar and Ors. 4 and in the case of Duruju Mallik v. Krupasindhu Swain 54 (1982) C.L.T. 143, that the civil Court does not ordinarily lose jurisdiction to try a suit unless it is shown from the special statute that the forums prescribed thereunder have the power to grant reliefs sought in the suit. As noticed earlier, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that both the reliefs sought in the suit, that is, for permanent injunction as well as award of damages,being outside the purview of the consolidation authorities the suit could not be held to have abated u/s 4 (4) of the Act. Therefore the civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the suit in all respects and the Court should not have felt any constraint in proceeding with the suit as he has done in the impugned order, In Sri Radhakanta Dev Bije Sauria and Anr. v. Radhakrishna Das and Ors. 5, disposed of on 19th September, 1986 this Court relying on the observations in the aforesaid two decisions held that the suit for damages does not abate u/s 4 (4) and has to be disposed of by the civil Court. The position is, therefore, manifest that the impugned order is unsustainable and has to be vacated. 5. In the result, the civil revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court will dispose of the suit in accordance with law. The position is, therefore, manifest that the impugned order is unsustainable and has to be vacated. 5. In the result, the civil revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court will dispose of the suit in accordance with law. Both parties will bear their respective costs of this proceeding. Final Result : Allowed