ORDER : A.K. Goswami, J. This petition, challenging the order dated 7-4-2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Dimapur in F. A. No. I/11 and the order dated 8-12-2010 in CMC No. 16/10 in Title Suit No. 1/10, is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. By order dated 8-12-2010, an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner/defendant No. I for rejection of the plaint was rejected. However, in the order, it is reflected that the application was filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (b) read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. By the order dated 7-4-2011, the learned District Judge accepted the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiffs that the appeal filed under Rule 29(1) read with Rule 34 of the Administration of Justice and Police Rules, 1937, as amended by Nagaland (3rd amendment) Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1937, is not maintainable and accordingly, had dismissed the appeal, granting liberty to the petitioners/appellants from agitating the issue under appropriate provisions of law. 3. The respondent Nos. I to 9 filed the suit numbered as Title Suit 1/10 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dimapur, praying, inter alia, for a decree declaring the settlement order dated 17-12-1991 issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and the order dated 20-7-2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in favour of the petitioner as without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void. Division, Dimapur, praying, inter alia, for a decree declaring the settlement order dated 17-12-1991 issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and the order dated 20-7-2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in favour of the petitioner as without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void. In the suit, the plaintiffs also prayed for a decree: "(i) Setting aside the impugned remarks entered in Jamebandi bearing Patta No. 157, Dag No. 203, Block No. 6, Mauza No. 1 of Dimapur town and title records relating thereto as well as the impugned Jamebandi bearing Patta No. 157/589, Dag No. 203, Block No. 6, Mauza No. 1 of Dimapur town for an area of 0-1-18 Ls issued in favour of Jame Masjid Committee on 15-12-2004 as illegal, null and void; (ii) Setting aside the impugned Deed of gift dated 9-3-1991 bearing registration No. SD-17/91 dated 22-4-1991 as null and void; (iii) Declaration of title and ownership that the plaintiffs are the lawful pattadars of Jamebandi bearing Patta No. 157, Dag No. 203, Block No. 6, Mauza No. I of Dimapur town for an area of 0-1-18 Ls and the standing building thereon by restoring the validity and effectiveness of the said Jamebandi; (iv) Restoration of the peaceful ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the suit properties by issuing permanent injunction against the defendants restraining and prohibiting them from any kind of interference in the peaceful ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiffs; (v) Recovery of the entire mesne profits; arising from the suit properties by way of house rent collections and such other enjoyments with effect from month of May, 2006,' till the ownership and enjoyment of the suit properties are restored to the plaintiffs @ Rs. 12,155/- per month, and/or at such future enhanced rates and amounts; (vi) For such further and other relief including cost of the suit as the Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper." 4. It is relevant to state that the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 1/10 along with others had also filed Title Suit No. 1/08 in the Court of Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) praying for the following reliefs: "1. That the impugned Deed of the Gift dated 9-3-1991 be set aside as illegal, null and void in the eye of law and the same does not confer any right to any parties/persons; 2. That the impugned Deed of the Gift dated 9-3-1991 be set aside as illegal, null and void in the eye of law and the same does not confer any right to any parties/persons; 2. That the entries in respect of Dag N6.203 in patta No. 157 of the impugned Jamebandies in ANNEXURES - "M-1" and "M-2" and the entire impugned Jamebandi in ANNEXURE-"M3" are also illegal, null and void in the eye of law and all these impugned Jamebandies confer no rights whatsoever to the defendants; 3. That the purported Order No. REV-9/91-D/8735, Dt/-17-12-1991 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, is also non existent in fact as well as in law and therefore to held as such; 4. That the impugned order No. REV-13/80/-D/pt-1115 63 8/Dated Dimapur the 20th July, 2007, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, is without jurisdiction and thus illegal, null and void and therefore to set aside as such; 5. That the plaintiffs are in fact as well as in law the joint pattadars of the suit land covered by patta No. 157, Dag No. 203, Block No. 6 in Dimapur town Mauza No. 1, and thus to declare that the plaintiffs are the joint owners of the entire suit properties with absolute rights of title, ownership and peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof and to restore these rights to the plaintiffs by issuing permanent mandatory injunction against the defendants together with declaration of the rights of entitlement to the entire mesne profits and for the right to receive thereof." 5. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were paying land revenue to the Government and when in the month of December, 2005, they approached the Mouzadar for payment of revenue as well as arrear revenue, they were informed that land under Dag No. 203. Patta No. 157 in Block No. 6 of Mouza No. 1 was converted to the ownership of Jame Masjid Committee. In the written statement filed, a copy of the order dated 17-12-1991 referred to in prayer No. 3 aforesaid, which, according to the plaintiffs, was non-existent, was also annexed. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs of the said suit, by filing an application under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, prayed for grant of permission for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs of the said suit, by filing an application under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, prayed for grant of permission for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Such liberty being granted, after withdrawing Title Suit No. 1/08, Title Suit No. 1/10 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dimapur. 6. In Title Suit No. 1/10, the defendant No. I filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) on the following grounds: "A. The Respondents/plaintiffs are seeking a decree of right of ownership over the suit land on the basis of the periodic lease granted to late Hazi Maligul Khan on 2-2-1971. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have categorically averred in their plaint that Hazi Maligul Khan died in 1951. Considering the admitted facts stated by the Respondents/Plaintiffs in their Plaint and the periodic lease dated 2-2-1971 issued in the name of late Hazi Maligul Khan after his demise, the periodic lease granted to late Hazi Maligul Khan was per se illegal. It is well established principle of law that illegality cannot be perpetuated. However, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have approached this Hon'ble Court seeking a decree on the basis of the illegal periodic lease dated 2-2-1971 to perpetuate illegality. The petitioner respectfully submits that the Respondents/Plaintiffs have strongly based their claim on the aforesaid illegal document and, therefore, this Hon'ble Court cannot assume jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the suit because the aforesaid illegal documents constitutes a legal bar on this Hon'ble Court to assume jurisdiction. On this ground alone the suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. B. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have categorically admitted in the Plaint that the land patta bearing Patta No. 157, Dag Nos. 203 and 215 which was made in the year 1972 in the names of all the 13 sons of late Hazi Maligul Khan was mutated from the aforesaid Patta dated 2-2-1971 of late Hazi Maligul Khan. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have also admitted that in order to mutate the aforesaid Dag Numbers in the names of the sons of late Hazi Maligul Khan, the notice dated 18- 12-1971 was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dimapur. The same illegality persisted. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have also admitted that in order to mutate the aforesaid Dag Numbers in the names of the sons of late Hazi Maligul Khan, the notice dated 18- 12-1971 was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dimapur. The same illegality persisted. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have also based their claim on the Patta subsequently mutated in the names of the sons of late Hazi Maligul Khan to seek a decree of right of ownership. This constitutes a bar on this Hon'ble Court to assume jurisdiction as the suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs is hit by Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. C. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have admitted that Dag No. 203 was cancelled from Patta No. 157 and carried to Patta No. 157/589. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have admitted that against the cancellation of Dag No. 203 from their Patta, they filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, for reversion of Dag No. 203 in the names of original Pattadars and availed a post-decision hearing. The Order dated 20-7-2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner shows that a fair opportunity was afforded to both the parties and the application of the Respondents/Plaintiffs was dismissed. The dispute between the parties pertained to settlement/allotment given to the Jame Masjid Committee and correction of records of rights on the basis of the occupation of the Jame Masjid Committee and cancellation of Dag No. 203 from the Patta of all the 13 sons of late Hazi Maligul Khan which was erroneously entered into their records of rights although the Jame Masjid Committee was in actual occupation of Dag No. 203 of Block No. 6 of Dimapur town. The proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner in the review case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs was judicial in nature. Therefore, the said order dated 20-7-2007 cannot be questioned before a Civil Court as the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, debar the Civil Court to exercise jurisdiction on such matters. The suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs is, therefore, hit by Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and, as such, it is liable to be rejected. The suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs is, therefore, hit by Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and, as such, it is liable to be rejected. D. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have explained in the plaint that after having discovered that the alteration in the record of rights was not the basis of a Gift Deed as assumed by them earlier when they filed the Civil Suit being T.S. No. I of 2008 but on the basis of the order dated 17-12-1991 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, they had to withdraw the earlier suit being TS No. 1/08. The present suit has now been filed challenging the Order dated 17-12-1991 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner along with Order dated 20-7-2007 and other documents mentioned therein in the prayer portion of the plaint. The order dated 17-12-91 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, pertained to settlement/allotment given to Jame Masjid Committees and correction of erroneous entries in the records of rights, after conforming the actual occupation of Dag No. 203 of Block No. 6 of Dimapur town by Jame Masjid Committee. The Order dated 17-12-91 also pertained to cancellation of Dag No. 203 from the Patta No. 157. The procedure followed was judicial in nature and therefore, the Order dated 17-12-1991 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner cannot be challenged in the Civil Court as the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, debar the Civil Court to exercise jurisdiction on such matters. The Petitioner respectfully submits that a settlement/allotment given by the authority cannot be challenged in a Civil Court as there is a specific statutory bar prohibiting the Civil Court to exercise jurisdiction on such matters. However, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have misconceived the actual nature of the dispute that was before the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and on this wrong assumption they have approached this Hon'ble Court to invoke its jurisdiction despite the specific bar laid down by the relevant provision of law. E. The basis for settlement/allotment given to the Jame Masjid Committee and the entry in the records of rights of the Jame Masjid Committee have been clearly reflected in the order dated 17-12-1991 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. E. The basis for settlement/allotment given to the Jame Masjid Committee and the entry in the records of rights of the Jame Masjid Committee have been clearly reflected in the order dated 17-12-1991 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. On the one hand the Respondents/Plaintiffs have conceded in their plaint that the Patta of the Jame Masjid Committee was not issued on the basis of any instrument, but on the basis of the order dated 17-12-1991 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. On the other hand, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have prayed for declaration of the irrelevant instrument that is, the Gift Deed dated 9-3-1991, as null and void without regarding the relevant gift deed dated 9-3-1991 as the cause of action for filing the suit. Therefore, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have failed to disclose any cause of action for setting aside the irrelevant gift deed and, as such, in this context, the suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs is hit by Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code." The said application was registered as C.M.C. No. 16/2010. 7. By an order dated 8-12-2010, the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dimapur, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, dismissed the application as being without any merit. 8. The appeal preferred under Rules of 1937, was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Dimapur as not maintainable, sustaining the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiffs, by his order dated 7-4-2011. 9. I have heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. T. Ao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 9. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos. 10 & 11. 10. Before Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Counsel for the petitioner, had made his submissions, Mr. T. Ao, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. I to 9 has submitted that the petitioner had a remedy by way of filing an application under Rule 32 of the Rules 1937 to challenge the order dated 8-12-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dimapur, before this Court. The learned Counsel submits that as the order dated 8-12-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. I to 9 has submitted that the petitioner had a remedy by way of filing an application under Rule 32 of the Rules 1937 to challenge the order dated 8-12-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dimapur, before this Court. The learned Counsel submits that as the order dated 8-12-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dimapur, is also challenged in this proceeding, instead of deciding as to whether the learned District Judge was correct in holding that the appeal before him was not maintainable, this Court may consider the legality and validity of the order dated 8-12-2010 so that the plea of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint is decided by this Court at the earliest. 11. In view of aforesaid submissions, Mr. Jamir submits that he would not address on the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Dimapur and would confine his arguments on the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 8-12-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dimapur while rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, the parties have been heard on the merits of the order dated 8-12-2010. 12. Mr. Jamir submits that the basic foundation of the case of the plaintiffs was based on periodic lease, issued in the year 1971 in favour of Hazi Maligul Than, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, who expired in the year 1951. It is submitted by him that such a document issued in the name of a dead person 20 years after death of such person cannot form the basis of a cause of action and therefore, the suit having not disclosed a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(a), Civil Procedure Code. 13. It is also contended by him that according to the plaintiffs themselves, patta was issued to Jame Masjid Committee on the basis of the order dated 17-12-1991 and viewed in the aforesaid context, no cause of action could have arisen for filing the suit seeking a declaration that the deed of gift dated 9-3-1991 bearing registration No. SD- 17/91 dated 22-4-1991 is null and void. Further submission of Mr. Jamir is that the suit land was settled in the name of defendant Nos. Further submission of Mr. Jamir is that the suit land was settled in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 17-12-1991 after hearing the parties and the suit was filed long 19 years therefrom. The learned Counsel submits that in view of Section 154 (a) and (c) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, adopted by the State of Nagaland, ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the suit is also liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d). In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relies on a judgment in the case of Moosa (Md.) & Ann v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2007 (1) GLT 400 and in the case of Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557 ( AIR 2003 SC 759 ). He has also relied on in the case of Umesh Chandra Saxena & Ors. v. Administrator General & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 All 109 . 14. Mr. Ao submits that the petitioner has only challenged the legality and validity of documents on which reliance have been placed by the plaintiffs and the same is beyond the ambit and scope of Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. It is submitted by him that draft lease of the land in question was granted to Haji Maligul Than as early as on 16-1-1939 and the patta dated 2-2-1971 conferring heritable and transferable right was issued by way of settlement with Haji Maligul Than, his heirs, representatives and assigns. It is also submitted by him that the notice dated 18-12-1971 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dimapur, which has been annexed with the petition, is wrongly typed inasmuch as in the notice, it was actually indicated that Md. Umar Khan, father of defendant No. 2, had applied for mutation whereas in the notice annexed with the petition, it has been wrongly indicated that Haji Maligul Khan had applied for mutation. It is submitted by him that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 started forcible collection of rent from the tenants from May, 2006. He submits that the plaint discloses series of causes of action against the defendants and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It is submitted by him that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 started forcible collection of rent from the tenants from May, 2006. He submits that the plaint discloses series of causes of action against the defendants and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It is also submitted by him that the registered deed of gift dated 9-3-1991 has not been disowned by the defendants and in any view of the matter, as the said gift deed relates to properties involved in the suit, the plaintiffs have a right to challenge the said registered deed of gift by way of a suit even though mutation was granted in favour of the Jame Masjid on the basis of the order dated 17-12-1991. It is also asserted by him that order dated 17-12-1991 was not passed after hearing the plaintiffs as contended by Mr. Jamir but the plaintiffs became aware of the order dated 17-12-1991 when reference was made to the said order in the order dated 20-7-2007 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, which was passed on the application of some of the plaintiffs along with others. It is also submitted by him that the plaintiffs have also sought for a declaration of right, title and interest and therefore, the contention that the suit is barred by law and hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected, is wholly misconceived. It is also submitted by him that no appellate authority has been constituted and/or established in the State of Nagaland to hear appeals from orders, original or appellate, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Settlement Officer or Survey Officer. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relies on the following judgments: i. (2006) 7 SCC 470 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1848) M. Meenakshi and Ors. v. Metadin Agarwal (dead) by LRS. and Ors., ii. (2011) 3 SCC 363 : ( AIR 2011 SC 1140 ) Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia and Ors. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors., iii. (2004) 9 SCC 512 Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr., iv. (2006) 3 SCC 100 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1828 ) Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. v. Owner & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors., v. (1989) 1 GLR 131 Daulatram Lakhani v. State of Assam and Ors. and vi. (2006) 3 SCC 100 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1828 ) Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. v. Owner & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors., v. (1989) 1 GLR 131 Daulatram Lakhani v. State of Assam and Ors. and vi. 2007 (3) GLT 995 Ram Prasad Koiri and Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Goala and Ors.. 15. Order 7, Rule 11(a) provides that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. Order 7, Rule I 1 (d) provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to refer to and consider the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the parties with reference to rejection of the plaint. 16. In Saleem Bhai ( AIR 2003 SC 759 ) (supra), the Apex Court stated that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code are the averments in the plaint and that the trial Court can exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code at any stage of the suit. The pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement is wholly irrelevant. 17. In Liverpool (supra), the Apex Court stated that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact and whether it does or does not must be found out from the reading of the plaint and for the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. In ascertaining whether the plaint shows a cause of action, which is a bundle of facts, the Court is not required to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law and fact. 18. In Mayar ( AIR 2006 SC 1828 ) (supra), the Apex Court reiterated that where the plaint discloses no cause of action, it is obligatory upon the Court to reject the plaint as a whole under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, but the rule does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint. 19. 18. In Mayar ( AIR 2006 SC 1828 ) (supra), the Apex Court reiterated that where the plaint discloses no cause of action, it is obligatory upon the Court to reject the plaint as a whole under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, but the rule does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint. 19. In Umesh Chandra Saxena ( AIR 1999 All 109 ) (supra), the Allahabad High Court stated that an action under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code does not await an application by any party and that it is duty of the Court to reject a plaint if the reasons are found existing from a reading of the plaint itself and not from a reading of the defence or other documents. 20. In the instant case, it is pleaded that plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the surviving sons of Late Haji Maligul Khan and therefore, they succeeded to the estate of the deceased father. Plaintiff Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 being the grandsons of Late Haji Maligul Khan, through the sons of Haji Maligul Khan, who were no more, also succeeded to the estate of their grandfather through their respective fathers. Plaintiff Nos. 5 and 9 also succeeded to the estate of Late Haji Malibul Khan as great-grand sons. Defendant No. ], the Jame Masijid Committee is impleaded through its president Md. Halim Khan, G.B., who is also another grandson of Late Haji Maligul Khan and Md. Halim Khan., G.B. is impleaded as defendant No. 2 being also a successor to the estate of Haji Maligul Khan. Late Haji Maligul Khan came to Dimapur in the year 1895 from Peshwar and was one of the first settlers amongst the members of the Muslim community in Dimapur. He owned many plots of land in Dimapur and in one of the plots, he established a Mosque for family use as there was no Mosque in Dimapur and with passage of time, it was opened for public worship and the Mosque came to be known as Dimapur Jame Masjid. He was the Mutawalli and on his death, one of his namely, Shah Khan and later on, his another son, namely, Hussain Khan, became the Mutawalli. Subsequently, the plot of land was registered with the Assam Board of Wakf. He was the Mutawalli and on his death, one of his namely, Shah Khan and later on, his another son, namely, Hussain Khan, became the Mutawalli. Subsequently, the plot of land was registered with the Assam Board of Wakf. Late Haji Maligul Khan got allotment of a plot of land measuring 5472 ft. in Patta No. 51, Plot No. 39 (suit property) in terms of order dated 16-1-1939 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Naga Hills. The land was developed and initially Katcha houses and later on, building with CGI sheets was constructed and the said building is occupied by tenants for running commercial activities. The allotted plot was next to patta No. 50, Plot No. 38 which was allotted to Lt. Shah Khan, father of plaintiff No. 4 and the said plot was sold by Late Shah Khan to one N. Angami by sale deed dated 10-5-1961. On 2-2-71, Patta No. 51, Plot 39 (suit property) was re-numbered as Patta No. 157, Dag No. 203 and 215, Block-6, Mouza No. 1. As Haji Maligul Khan died in the year 1951, the sons of Late Haji Maligul Khan had applied for mutation and vide notice dated 18-12-71, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate invited claims and objections and thereafter, on completion of the formalities, Jamabandi bearing new patta No. 157, Dag No. 203 for an area of 1 katha 12 lechas in Block No. 6, Mouza No. 1 of Dimapur town together with Dag No. 215 for another plot of land measuring 2 katha in the same common Jamabandi were mutated in the names of all the 13 sons of Late Haji Maligul Khan. 21. By an authorisation letter dated 19-3-1981, the Mutawalli was authorised to collect the house rent for the family members of joint pattadars. The relevant title documents of the plots inherited from Late Haji Maligul Khan was in the custody of Md. Umar Khan and taking advantage of the same, he managed to get converted for his own ownership, a portion of the land covered by Dag No. 215 which were inherited by all the sons of Late Haji Maligul Khan. The plaintiffs filed a petition in the month of March, 2006 before the defendant No. 4 for reconverting of ownership of the land in their names. This petition was objected to by the defendant No. I by contending that Late Md. The plaintiffs filed a petition in the month of March, 2006 before the defendant No. 4 for reconverting of ownership of the land in their names. This petition was objected to by the defendant No. I by contending that Late Md. Hussain Khan is a self styled Mutawalli and that the suit land and property belongs to Dimapur Mosque which is managed by the Masjid Committee, which is in peaceful occupation for the last 28 years. From May, 2006, defendant No. 1 also started collecting house rent from the tenants in the building. During the pendency of the proceeding before the defendant No. 4, in the month of July, 2006, the plaintiffs wanted to know from Md. Umar Khan, who died in December, 2006, as to how the suit land was claimed by Jame Masjid Committee whereupon he produced 3 different Jamabandis. On further enquiry, Smt. Syeda, daughter of Late Md. Umar Khan produced before the plaintiffs a photocopy of deed of gift dated 9-3-1981, purportedly executed by the surviving sons of Late Haji Maligul Khan donating a plot of land measuring 18 leachas out of 1 katha 18 lechas under Dag No. 203, covered by Patta No. 157, registered on 22-4-1991 by the Sub-Registrar, Dimapur. It is alleged that barring the signatures of Late Md. Umar Khan, all the signatures of the donors were forged signatures and done through impersonation at the machinations of Late Md. Umar Khan. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiffs on 20-7-2007 on the ground that Jame Masjid was joint pattadar with another and the Additional Deputy Commissioner had mutated an area of land measuring 1 katha 12 lechas in the name of Jame Masjid in Dag No. 203. It is also pleaded that the suit land was under the peaceful ownership and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in interest ever since the suit land was allotted by the Government on 16-1-1939 and before passing the order dated 17-12-1991 cancelling the mutation of the names of the pattadars, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur did not issue any notice to show-cause and the ex parte order dated 17-12-1991 was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Averments have been made that the case involved serious question of disputed title, ownership and enjoyment of allotted patta land and the building constructed thereof by the lawful pattadars. 22. The pleadings in the plaint as noticed above, demonstrate series of causes of actions against the defendants. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that documents relied upon by the petitioners are, per se, illegal and therefore, cannot form the basis of a case of action cannot be accepted. The Court is not required, at this stage, to make a detailed enquiry. It is also not permissible to brand a document as illegal or void before adjudication is made. It had been held in Meenakshi, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1848 (supra) and Krishna Devi, AIR 2011 SC 1140 (supra) that it is a settled legal proposition that even if an order is void, it requires to be set aside by a competent Court of law or to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion, the order is void. This Court is also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Jamir that the substratum of the plaintiffs' case being illegal issuance of patta to Jame Masjid Committee, on the basis of the order dated 17-12-1991, seeking of declaration that the deed of gift dated 9-3-1991 is misconceived and same cannot be construed to provide a cause of action for filing of the suit. It is not in dispute that there is in existence a registered deed of gift involving part of the suit property and therefore, plaintiffs would be entitled to seek a declaration that the gift deed is null and void in the instant suit as otherwise it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the contention of the petitioner that the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 (a), Civil Procedure Code is not tenable in law. 24. In terms of Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits in respect of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court should not be readily inferred but such exclusion must either be ex-licitly expressed or clearly implied. 24. In terms of Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits in respect of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court should not be readily inferred but such exclusion must either be ex-licitly expressed or clearly implied. It is a settled principle of law that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine cases where the provisions of a particular statute have not been complied with or where statutory tribunals have not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. 25. In view of submissions of Mr. Jamir, it will also be appropriate to reproduce herein below Section 154(1)(a) & (c) and Section 154(2) of Regulation of 1886. "154(I) Except when otherwise expressly provided in this Regulation, or in rules issued under this Regulation, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of the following : (a) questions as to the validity or effect of any settlement, or as to whether the conditions of any settlement are still in force; ....................... (c) the formation of the record-of-rights, or the preparation, signing, or alteration of any document contained therein; ....................... 154(2) In all the above cases jurisdiction shall rest with the revenue authorities only." 26. Perusal of Section 154 (1) and Section 154(2) of Regulation of 1886 shows that the aforesaid provisions have created an express bar to the effect that Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the matters covered by Section 154(1) including Section 154(1)(a) & (c). 27. In Daulatram Lakhani (supra), a Full Bench of this Court had stated that in two contingencies, Civil Court's jurisdiction would not be barred despite what has been stated in Section 154 of the Regulation of 1886. These two contingencies are : (i) When the question of title is raised; and (ii) The order of the revenue authority is illegal and without jurisdiction. 28. In Ram Prasad Koiri (supra), this Court negatived the contention advanced that questions as to the validity or effect of any settlement as finding place in Section 154 (1)(a) of the Regulation of 1886 also includes cancellation though the word "cancellation" has not been expressly inserted in the provision. 29. 28. In Ram Prasad Koiri (supra), this Court negatived the contention advanced that questions as to the validity or effect of any settlement as finding place in Section 154 (1)(a) of the Regulation of 1886 also includes cancellation though the word "cancellation" has not been expressly inserted in the provision. 29. It is thus clear that once a suit is filed for declaration of right, title and interest, the bar imposed under Section 154 of the Regulation of 1886 does not come into play and it would be always open to the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the question of title irrespective of the provisions of Section 154. In Moosa (supra), on which reliance was placed by Mr. Jamir to emphasise that having regard to the prayers made by the plaintiffs in the present case, the suit was barred under Section 154 of the Regulation of 1886, this Court noted that prayer for resettlement of the land is barred by the provisions of Section 154 of the Regulation of 1886. It was also noted therein that the plaintiffs/appellants had failed to establish their title over the suit land by adducing any evidence and accordingly, had dismissed the second appeal. 30. As noticed earlier, in the plaint, it was pleaded that order dated 17-12-1991 was passed without any notice to the pattadars and the plaintiffs had prayed for a decree, amongst others, that the said order be set aside as being without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void. Plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree for declaration of title and ownership of an area of land measuring 1 katha 18 lechas and the standing building thereon. In view of the law laid down by this Court as noticed herein above, this Court is unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 154 of the Regulation of 1886. 31. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court was justified in passing the order dated 8-12-2010 rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint and therefore, no interference with the said order is called for 32. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No cost. 33. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Petition dismissed.