IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1442 of 2007 1. Sheo Pujan Singh. 2. Shyam Bihari Singh. 3. Shiv Bachan Singh. 4. Shiv Lochan Singh sons of Late Bibhuti Singh. 5. Khichadu Singh son of Sheo Bachan Singh. 6. Indradeo Singh son of Late Kuer Singh. 7. Ram Nagina Singh. 8. Sri Bhagwan Singh. 9. Ram Bilash Singh sons of Sri Indradeo Singh. 10. Mostt. Kishori Devi W/o Markandey Singh. 11. Rajbansh Singh. 12. Dayashankar Singh both sons of Markandey Singh. All R/o Village Labedahan, P.O.-Deohalia, P.S.-Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua). –Defendants-Petitioners. .. Versus Ghurahu Sah Son of Late Barhu Sah. R/o Village-Masarhi, P.O.-Deohalia, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). …..Plaintiff…………Opposite Party. ----------- 5. 23.11.2011 Heard Mr. Mahesh Prasad No.-2, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners. By the impugned order the Court below has rejected the prayer of the defendants challenging the maintainability of the suit under Section 4B of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). There is no dispute that the suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the right title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit plots. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that there are averments made in the 2 plaint showing that the dispute regarding the suit land is being adjudicated by the authorities under the Act and a revision application is pending and as such the present suit, filed in the garb of a suit for permanent injunction, is only for the purpose of seeking the declaration of title over the suit land during the pendency of the consolidation proceeding and is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before the Court the averments made in the plaint for consideration. After perusing the impugned order and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners it appears that the relief sought for in the plaint is with regard to permanent injunction only which is clearly not within the jurisdiction of the consolidation Courts under the Act. The statements made in the plaint may be relevant for decision of the suit on merits or for grant of an interim relief during the pendency of the suit but the same, per se, would not be determinative factors, for which the nature of the relief claimed in the suit will have also to be seen to determine the question of maintainability of the suit under Section 4B of the Act. The Court below has rightly held that the suit for grant of permanent injunction is not hit by Section 4(B) of the Act. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. Kamlesh (V. Nath, J.)