This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7. 4.88 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 16 of 1980 on decision of Issue No. 3 in the suit. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Mohammad, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, learned counsel for the opposite party. The defendants of the said title suit are the petitioners herein. The opposite party filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his right, title and interest on the suit land and also for confirmation of possession of the suit land. The suit was contested by the petitioners - defendants by filing written statement denying the all­egations made by the plaintiff. Along with other grounds of contest the defendants pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code read with section 66 of Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971. In other words the defendants pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present nature of the suit of the plaintiff. On various grounds in the pleadings of both the parties several issues were struck by the learned trial Court out of which Issue No. 3 was relevant issue in respect of which the impugned order has been rendered. Issue No. 3 runs as follows: "3. Whether the suit is barred under section 9 of the C. P. C. read with section 66 of the Assam Tenancy Act ?" 3. The contention of Mr. N. Mohammad, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the status of the tenant on the basis of the valid khatian issued under the provisions of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 can be decided by the revenue Court if any dispute is raised by the landlord. The civil Court cannot decide as to the correctness of the issuance of khatian to a tenant by revenue authority. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, section 66 (c) of the Act which has taken away the jurisdiction of the civil Court immediately comes into play. Likewise, section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code also creates a bar in the present suit as the jurisdiction of the civil Court is taken away by express provision as laid down under section 66 of the Act. Likewise, section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code also creates a bar in the present suit as the jurisdiction of the civil Court is taken away by express provision as laid down under section 66 of the Act. In the above context the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the learned trial Court is on minister -predation of relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act as well as the provisions of section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and as such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has committed a jurisdictional error. It is true that if there is any jurisdictional error to try any matter, certainly this Court shall interfere in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit of the plaintiff. Section 66 of the Act runs as follows:- "66. Matters exempted from cognizance of civil Court - Except where otherwise expressly provided for in this Act or the Rules made thereunder, no civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of the following matters,- (a) Claims to enhancement, reduction or alteration of rent of holdings; (b) Claims to deposit rent; (c) Preparation of record of rights under Chapter X and preparation, signing, or alteration of any document contai­ned therein; (d) Maintenance of record-of-rights; In these matters, the jurisdiction shall only be with the Revenue Court or Officer as the case may be." Section 68 of the Act provides that except as provided in sections 66 and 67, the civil Court shall have jurisdiction in all suits between landlord and tenant as such. Likewise the provision of section 9 of the C. P. C. restricts the jurisdiction of the civil Court in the following manner "9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred - The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdic­tion to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.” In view of the aforesaid provision of section 9 of C. P. C. it is to be seen whether the civil Court is barred to try such suit. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. vlahanta, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that there cannot be any bar for the civil Court to try a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and also for cancellation of the khatian wrongly issued in favour of petitioners- defendants. It is further submitted that- if a question of title is involved for which a declaration is sought for, the civil suit is maintainable and the civil Court has jurisdiction to try such suit to decide the status of the landlord and tenant which can only be determined by adjudication in a civil suit and not otherwise. In support of this contention Mr. Mahanta referred to me a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1967 Assam and Nagaland page 3 (The State of Assam vs. Sifat Ali and others). A Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment has ruled in paragraph g as follows :- " --...This does not debar the civil Court from entertaining suits based on title to the property. The plaintiffs' case is that the periodic patta in their favour creates a right of the plaintiffs in the property and that right has been affected by the order of the Commissioner. This encroachment on the right of the plaintiffs gives them a cause of action to bring a suit for declaration of their right......” Though the aforesaid case was considered in the light of the provisions of 154 of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation it cannot be argued as to why the same principle cannot be attracted in the present nature of the case. Another decision of this Court rendered by a Single Bench as reported in (1984) 2 GLR 8 (Ka Trily Tariang vs. U. Resdrikson Lyngdoh and others) can be referred where this Court discussed the provisions of section 154 (1) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation relating to the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Another decision of this Court rendered by a Single Bench as reported in (1984) 2 GLR 8 (Ka Trily Tariang vs. U. Resdrikson Lyngdoh and others) can be referred where this Court discussed the provisions of section 154 (1) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation relating to the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Relying on the decision on the State of Assam vs. Sifat Ali (supra) this Court held that the matters within the jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities or Courts could be decided by them but no such decision can take away the jurisdiction of the civil Court when a person having right to an asset claimed entitled to it and sought a declaration of his right in the civil Court notwithstanding the provisions contained in section 154 (1) (a) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation. It was further held that the civil Court and not only can declare title to the property but it can also adjudicate that the Revenue Officer or the courts acted beyond their jurisdiction resulting in a failure of justice. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties. The submi­ssion made by Mr. Mahanta appears to have sufficient force because it is based on the ratio of the decision of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court. In Magiti Sasamal v. Pandab Bissoi and others as reported in AIR 1962 SC 547 it was held that the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot be determined by Revenue Court and as such in such cases it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the civil Court in such case is excluded by such provision of law. This being the position, I am constrained to hold that the impugned order is passed on consideration of the relevant provisions of law and the learned trial Court has rightly decided Issue No. 3 in favour of plaintiff holding that the civil Court was not barred to try the suit. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In the result the petition has no substance and it is dismissed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In the result the petition has no substance and it is dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioners defendants to adduce evidence in course of trial in respect of, their stand taken in the written statement as regards their right of tenancy in respect of the land. There is no order as to cost.