JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 46 of 1985 of the Court of the Munsif, Kendrapara filed this application u/s 115 of the CPC (for short 'C.P.C.') challenging the order passed by the learned Munsif on 11-7-1989 that the suit abated under Sections 4(4) and 51 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner filed the aforementioned suit against opposite parties to declare his right, tide, interest and possession over the suit land and to declare the finally published record of rights by the consolidation authorities as illegal. The suit land as described in the plaint was Ac 0.11 decimals in plot Nos. 231 and 232 under Khata No. 5 of village Derakundi. It is the case of both the parties that the suit land is homestead land with a house standing thereon. The gist of the Plaintiff's case is that the suit land will recorded in the names of Bira and Satru, both sons of Chaini and Dejei son of Bhagi in the C.S. record of rights. Chaini and Bhagi were the sons of one Sudarsan. The land was ancestral property of Chaini and Bhagi. Both of them were dead before publication of the current settlement record of rights and as such the property was recorded in the names of their sons. Bira died leaving behind his only son Akuli (Plaintiff); Satru the other recorded owner left the village since the date of his marriage and stayed in his father-in-law's place permanently; since his name has been !?corded in the settlement record of rights he has been impleaded in the suit as proforma Defendant No. 4. The other recorded owner Dejei died issueless. The Plaintiff being the only successor and legal heir of Bira, Satru and Dejei, was in peaceful possession of the suit land after the death of his father. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants were neither connected with the recorded owner nor they had any interest or possession-over the suit land. On 20-8-1984 they threatened to forcibly possess the suit plot No. 231 claiming that it was recorded in their names in the finally published record of rights issued by the consolidation authorities. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants were neither connected with the recorded owner nor they had any interest or possession-over the suit land. On 20-8-1984 they threatened to forcibly possess the suit plot No. 231 claiming that it was recorded in their names in the finally published record of rights issued by the consolidation authorities. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, the Plaintiff specifically alleged that he filed objection u/s 9 of the Act for correction of the land record; that on the date of hearing the Court (Consolidation Officer) had openly declared for correction of the land record in the name of the Plaintiff and instructed the Plaintiff to put his signature on a plain order sheet; under the impression that the orders win be passed in his favour, as verbally declared and the same will be written on the said order-sheet afterwards, the Plaintiff in good faith believing the verbal order of the Consolidation Officer had put his signature on the order-sheet. Thereafter when the Defendants gave out that they were recorded in the consolidation records, the Plaintiff enquired into the matter and could come to know that the Defendants by gaining over the consolidation officials had managed to record their names in the record of rights. The Plaintiff asserted that in fact no title was conferred on the Defendants on the wrong recording of their names in the consolidation patta nor the defendants had ever possessed the suit land in any manner. On these averments he filed the suit seeking the reliefs noticed earlier. 3. The Defendants 1 to 3 in their written, statement took the plea, inter alia, that the suit was hit by the provisions of Sections 4 and 51 of the Act, and the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case; that the suit was hit by the principles of res judicata, law of acquiescence and estoppel and hence liable to be dismissed. The Defendants while admitting that the suit land was the ancestral property of, Bhagi and Chaini, denied the other averments in the plaint. They also denied that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the record of rights recording the suit land in their names were vitiated in the manner alleged in the plaint. The Defendants while admitting that the suit land was the ancestral property of, Bhagi and Chaini, denied the other averments in the plaint. They also denied that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the record of rights recording the suit land in their names were vitiated in the manner alleged in the plaint. According to the Defendants one Bhagi Mallik was the common ancestor of both the parties. He had two sons, Arta alias Sadhu and Dinei; Arta's son was Chaini and Chaini's sons were Bira and Satru and Bira's son was the Plaintiff. Dinei's son was Brundaban and Brundaban's sons were Defendants 1 to 3 and Brundaban's wife was Rodani. It was their further case that the disputed plots along with plot No. 233 with an area of Ac.0.12 dec. Ac. 0.23 dec. in all) belonged to the ancestors of both the parties which were their homestead and Bari lands. After current settlement operation, Bira Satru and Brundaban had partitioned their properties amicably and in the said partition the disputed plot Nos. 231 and 232 comprising an area of Ac.O.11 dec. fell to the share of Brundaban and the other plot No. 233 with an area of Ac.0.12 dec. fell to the share of Bira and Satru. Thereafter Brundaban constructed a house on the suit land and possessed it exclusively and after his death the Defendants and their mother Rodani were possessing the suit land and the house standing thereon. According to the Defendants the Plaintiff had no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and he did not raise any objection during the consolidation operation to the exclusive recording of the names of the Defendants in respect of the suit land. On these averments the Defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. During pendency of the suit a petition was filed by the Defendants on 21-10-1986 praying to the Court to pass necessary order for preliminary hearing of the suit on the issue of its maintainability, in view of Sections 4 and 51 of the Act and on the ground of res judicata. 4. During pendency of the suit a petition was filed by the Defendants on 21-10-1986 praying to the Court to pass necessary order for preliminary hearing of the suit on the issue of its maintainability, in view of Sections 4 and 51 of the Act and on the ground of res judicata. The Plaintiff in his objection to the said petition stated, inter alia, that the consolidation operation in the area had been concluded prior to filing of the suit and the Plaintiff has challenged the wrong recording of the names of the Defendants by the consolidation authority and therefore, the civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised in this case. The matter has disposed of by toe impugned order in the manner stated earlier. 5. On perusal of the impugned order it is manifest that the learned Munsif did not apply his mind properly to the case and disposed of the matter in a rather superficial manner. He has held that the consolidation operation had been completed in 1984 before filing of the suit and the final patta had been issued in favour of the Defendants. It therefore, follows that Section 4(4) of the Act which deals with pending suits and proceedings has no application to the suit. Section 4(4) provides, inter alia, that every suit and proceedings for declaration of any right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area in regard to which proceedings could be or ought to be started under the Act, which is pending before any civil Court, whether of the first instance or appeal, reference or revision shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court before which such suit or proceeding is pending, stands abated. Under the last proviso to Sub-section (4), it is provided that such abatement shall be without prejudice to the right of the person affected to agitate the right or interest which formed the subject matter of the said suit or proceeding, before the proper consolidation authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act of the rules made thereunder. It is clear from the provision that it has application only to pending suit or proceeding for declaration of any right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area, in regard to which proceedings could be or ought to be started under the Act. It is clear from the provision that it has application only to pending suit or proceeding for declaration of any right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area, in regard to which proceedings could be or ought to be started under the Act. The intent and purpose is to avoid continuance of parallel proceedings before the civil Court as well as the authorities under the Act. The learned Munsif was therefore clearly in error in passing the order of abatement of the suit u/s 4(4) of the Act. 6. The other question to be considered is whether the suit as laid could be entertained by the Civil Court in view of the provisions in Section 51 of the Act. The said Section makes provisions regarding bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts. Therein it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions contained in Section 4(3) and Section 7(1) all questions relating to right, title, interest and liability in land lying in the consolidation area, except, those coming within the jurisdiction of revenue Courts or authorities under any local law for the time being in force, shall be decided under the provisions of the Act by the appropriate authority during the consolidation operations; and no civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an officer or authority empowered under the Act is competent to decide. In order to decide the question it is incumbent to ascertain the nature and scope of the suit from the pleadings of the parties. It has to be borne in mind that ouster of jurisdiction of the civil Court is not to be readily inferred and care should be taken to see that the person aggrieved is not, left without a forum to redress his grievance. The scope of the suit cannot be determined merely from the relief sought in the plaint, the pleadings of both the parties are to be considered in entirety for determining the matter. No doubt one of the important aspects to be considered in this connection is whether the consolidation authorities have power/competence to grant the relief sought in the suit. The scope of the suit cannot be determined merely from the relief sought in the plaint, the pleadings of both the parties are to be considered in entirety for determining the matter. No doubt one of the important aspects to be considered in this connection is whether the consolidation authorities have power/competence to grant the relief sought in the suit. In the present case, as noticed earlier, the Plaintiff has not only prayed for declaration of his right, title and interest to and for confirmation of his possession over the suit land, 'but also for a declaration that the record of rights prepared by the consolidation authority is illegal and invalid. This part of the relief is based on the allegations that the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer was vitiated on account of fraud, misrepresentation practised on the Plaintiff and the collusion between the Defendants and officials under the authority. The question is not whether the Plaintiff can or cannot succeed in establishing these allegations, but the question, is whether this matter can be adjudicated by the consolidation authorities and whether it is within their competence to grant the declaration sought for in the suit. No statutory provision has been brought to my notice which empowers the statutory authority, to determine such a question. It therefore follows that the suit in the present case is not barred under the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. 7. The question that remains to be considered relates to the plea that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata. This plea is closely linked with the applicability of Section 51 to the suit. As held by me in the preceding paragraphs, Section 51 has no application to the suit. Further, in order to examine the question of res judicata raised in the present suit, it is necessary to examine the records in the proceeding before the consolidation authorities and the orders passed by them. Admittedly no such materials had been produced before the learned Munsif when he passed the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case it would have been proper for the learned Munsif to consider the question of res judicata along with other issues at the trial of the suit. Admittedly no such materials had been produced before the learned Munsif when he passed the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case it would have been proper for the learned Munsif to consider the question of res judicata along with other issues at the trial of the suit. Therefore the contention raised by the Defendants that the plea of res judicata should be considered as a preliminary point and the suit should be dismissed, as barred by res judicata, has to be rejected. It is made older that the Defendants may raise the question of res judicata at the trial of the suit if so advised: 8. I am constrained to observe that the learned Munsif neither maintained the distinction between Sections 4(4) and 51 of the, Act nor did he closely examined the nature and scope of the suit while passing the order of abatement of the suit under Sections 4(4) and 51 of the Act. The order is therefore, unsustainable. 9. In the result; the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Munsif is directed to proceed with the suit and dispose it of keeping in view the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law. There will be no order for costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed