JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - This application by the Defendants is directed against the order of the Munsif, Bargarh, rejecting their prayer to pass an order of abatement of the suit u/s 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (shortly stated 'the Act'). 2. Undisputedly the consolidation operations are in progress in the area. Section 4 provides for the effect of the notification issued u/s 3 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 provides that "every suit and proceedings for declaration of any right or interest of any land situate within the consolidation area in regard to which proceedings could be or ought to be started under this Act, which is pending before any Civil Court" at any stage is to stand abated. Issuance of the notification, therefore, prior to institution of any suit or subsequent thereto is immaterial. The absolutely wrong observation made by the Munsif in paragraph 5 of the order that since the date of the publication of the notification was not known, i.e., whether it was after or before the filing of the suit, the present suit could not abate u/s 4(4) of the Act, simply betrays his ignorance of law. 3. The second serious error that has been committed is that he has not looked into the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in a proceeding between the same parties wherein the same question had been agitated as to whether the Plaintiff had any interest in the land or of. The Plaintiff very cleverly did not disclose the history of that proceeding but the order was brought to the notice of the trial court. Section 51 of the Act has put a clear bar on the right of the Civil Courts pertaining the matters which can be decided by the consolidation authorities. He has misplaced reliance on a decision of this Court in Puni Bewa and Another Vs. Ananta Sahoo and Others, which was dealing with a situation where, a suit was pending in the final decree stage in the Civil Court. Although, in the other case, namely, Sridhar Mohanty Vs. He has misplaced reliance on a decision of this Court in Puni Bewa and Another Vs. Ananta Sahoo and Others, which was dealing with a situation where, a suit was pending in the final decree stage in the Civil Court. Although, in the other case, namely, Sridhar Mohanty Vs. Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, there is an observation that there being no express provision in the Act giving jurisdiction to the consolidation authorities to grant relief of injunction, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be taken to have been ousted in such cases: in my opinion, reading the plaint as a whole although the Plaintiff has prayed only for a relief of injunction, that certainly presupposes the existence of a prima facie case in his favour, which is the elementary principle for grant of injunction. Since this matter had already been decided against him by the consolidation authorities, he should not have been permitted to re-open the matter in a civil court by crossing the boundaries and limitations of Section 51 by an ingenuous framing of the suit, If this is allowed, then the whole purpose and intent of Section 51 will be lost. 4. Nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party. Therefore, I have taken some pains to examine the matter with more care from the stand point of the Plaintiff also. 5. From the above discussion, I feel satisfied that the trial court has committed an apparent error of jurisdiction. The application, therefore, must succeed and it is accordingly held that the Plaintiff's suit is hit by Section 4(4) of the Act. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite party, there will be no order for costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed