ORDER Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Order Dated 12.5.2008 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nimapara in C.S. No. 23 of 2007 rejecting the petition filed by the present Petitioner to stay the suit pending disposal Consolidation Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2005 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Puri has been assailed in this writ application. The Plaintiff. Party No.1 has filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for permanent injunction. Prior to the filing of the suit, the Plaintiff had filed Revision Case No. 2372 of 2002 u/s 37 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') for correction of map in respect of plot No. 114 on the allegation that Defendant's adjoining plot No.113 has been increased in area and the plot of the Plaintiff has been reduced. The revision was filed after closure of Consolidation operation in the suit village. In the revision case the Commissioner of Consolidation without issuance of notice to the Defendants remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Nimapara. After the remand, the Consolidation Officer, Nimapara without issuing notice to the Defendants, the land owners, allowed the remand revision case and in pursuance of such order Opp. Party No.1 got his name mutated in respect of the suit land. After coming to know of the said fact, the Defendants filed Consolidation Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2005 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Puri challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer. In the premises, the Defendants file a petition u/s. 4(4) read with Section 51 of the Act for stay of the suit pending disposal of the appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation. The Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) by the impugned order rejected the said petition on the ground that the cause of action accrued after the closure of the Consolidation operation. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Commissioner without deciding the revision on merits remanded the same to the Consolidation Officer, the decision of the Consolidation Officer must be deemed to be one under Section 10 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Commissioner without deciding the revision on merits remanded the same to the Consolidation Officer, the decision of the Consolidation Officer must be deemed to be one under Section 10 of the Act. The Defendants have rightly filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer, since the order was passed behind their back and since the Deputy Director is in seisin of the matter, in the fitness of things the suit pending before the Civil Court should await the decision of the Deputy Director, Consolidation. Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No.1 (Plaintiff) submits that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the remand revision case is not appealable and, therefore, the Civil Court has rightly rejected the petition for stay of the suit. The question whether power of revision under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act is available to be exercised after closure of Consolidation operation was notified under Section 41 of the Act was considered by a Full bench of this Court in the case of Gulzar Khan v. Commissioner of Consolidation & Ors.; 1993 (I) OLR 194 and it was held in paragraph-15 of the said decision that revisional power conferred by Section 36 is an integral part of the scheme of the Act and a person aggrieved at the Appellate order of the Director cannot be denied approach to the Commissioner merely because Section 41 notification has been issued. In paragraph-16 similar view was taken in respect of revisional power of the Commissioner under Section 37 of the Act. This Court further held as follows in paragraph-19 : “19. A submission has been made that as the consolidation authorities visualized by the Act become functus officio on the closure of consolidation operations, none would be left to implement the order to be passed by Consolidation Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred by Section 37 of the Act. As to this, we would observe that those very authorities, who are enquired to give effect to the orders to be passed in pending cases or proceedings, of which mention has been made in Section 41 (3) of the Act, which orders would apparently be passed after the closure of the consolidation operations, may give effect to the order to be passed by Section 37 authority. The functus officio argument has thus no cutting edge; it has neither claws nor teeth”. It is not disputed that after closure of Consolidation by issuance of notification under Section 41 of the Act, offices of Consolidation Officer and Dy. Director are continuing to exist and have remained functional. Where the revisional authority in exercise of power under Section 37 of the Act is unable to decide the matter by himself and remands it to the Consolidation Officer for decision after perusing all records and if necessary by making field verification and the Consolidation Officer takes any decision with regard to objections as to right, title and interest in the land or for correction of maps, the power he exercises must be deemed to be one under Section 11 of the Act which is subject to an appeal under Section 12 of the Act. In such circumstances, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer in the remand revision case has filed appeal before the Dy, Director Consolidation which is still pending. Since the competent authority is in the seisin of the matter, which is within its competency, the suit pending before the Civil Court is liable to be stayed. In the decision reported in 2010 (2) OLR 379 ; Netrananda Behera and Khetrabasi Behera, where even after issuance of notification under Section 41 of the Act the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner was invoked under Section 37 of the Act and it was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, this Court directed for stay of the suit pending disposal of the matter before the Consolidation authority. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Court below is indefensible and therefore, I set aside the same. The Trial Court shall stay the suit pending disposal of the matter in Consolidation Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2005 on the file of the Dy. Director, Consolidation, Puri. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Writ Petition allowed.