By this revision application, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 16.6.95 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner on the executive side. 2. I have heard Mr. Temjen, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No.l and Mr. I. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. This revision petition has been preferred under. Rule 29 read with Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland Rules, 1937, (hereinafter the Rules) as amended. At the outset, Mr. Gogoi raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that the revision petition is not maintainable either under Rule 29 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland as amended or under Rule 32 of the Rules inasmuch as under the said Rules, a provision has been made to file an appeal before this Court against the original decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner. Further Rule 32 provides that a revision petition be filed before the High Court or the Deputy Commissioner on application by the aggrieved party if and only after availing of remedy by way of Appeal as provided under Rule 29 of the Rules. 4. A cursory reading of Rule 29 of the Rules, it postulate that the appeal under Rule 29 of the rules must be against the original decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner. The original decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner postulated in Rule 29 of the Rules would meant original decision in a judicial proceeding by filing a proper plaint. In the instant case, admittedly, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his executive power on the administrative side to contain the law and order problem. Such order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his executive power cannot be said to be an original decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner because the prescribed procedure contain in Rule 24 (1) of the Rules for filing plaint is found about and is not assailable either under Rule 29 or Rule 32 of the Rules. 5. Next it is contended by Mr. Ranjan Gogoi that at most this Court in exercise of its inherent power conferred to treat the revision application its the one under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Next it is contended by Mr. Ranjan Gogoi that at most this Court in exercise of its inherent power conferred to treat the revision application its the one under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even the present revision petition is treated as the one under Article 226 of the Constitution, there will be one difficulty to entertain such petition- The dispute calls, for determination in the present case is. whether Luyong is an independent village or a sector of Mulongyimsen village. This being the disputed question of facts, such dispute can only be resolved after adducing the evidence and cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having confronted with this position, Mr. Temjen makes a prayer that a direction may be issued by this Court directing the revisionist to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction to redress their grievances. Such direction may not be necessary as in ordinary course of nature the parties are always liberty to approach the civil Court to redress their grievances, subject to objection raised by the other side in accordance with law. 7. For the reasons aforestated, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. Interim order if any stands vacated.