1. By this Second Appeal the appellants have challenged concurrent findings of the learned courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was held to be barred under Section 154(1)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886. 2. The plaintiffs who are husband and wife instituted Title Suit No. 8 of 1997 in the court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon praying for declaration that the plaintiffs acquired right, title and interest to the suit land measuring 2 Katha, 10 Leaches. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the Land Advisory Committee of the District Bongaigaon in its meeting held on 28.4.1993 adopted resolution No. 24 whereupon, the suit land measuring 2 Katha, 10 Leaches covered by Dag No. 266 of Mouza Birhora Tea Estate was allotted in favour of the plaintiffs. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, letter was issued to the Jurisdictional Additional Deputy Commissioner (R) on 24.5.1993 informing the Assistant Settlement Officer that the land infavour of the plaintiffs on payment of a premium of 100% of the market price of the land. It was also held that the market price of the land was Rs. 60, 000 per Bigha. Pursuant to the commutation made to them, the plaintiffs deposited Rs. 30,000 in the State Bank of India vide Treasury Chalan in favour of the defendant Nos. l to 3 and a kutcha patta was issued in their names on 7.7.1995 but subsequently by order dated 19.2.1996 the settlement was partially modified through the department’s letter 18.1.1994 by incorporating the names of defendant No. 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that when they have made payment for the entire amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 30,000 then the official defendant Nos. l to 3 held another proceeding keeping the plaintiff in dark and thereby modified the settlement by incorporating name of the defendant No. 4 in the records of rights and in the process the plaintiffs have been seriously prejudiced. With these averments of facts, the plaintiffs prayed for decree, inter alia, for declaration that they two are joint owners of the land to the exclusion of others and the modification and/or resettlement conveyed vide letter dated 19.2.1996 is null and void and it did not convey any title to the defendant No. 4. 3. On being summoned the defendant No. 4 filed a written statement whereas the defendant Nos. 3. On being summoned the defendant No. 4 filed a written statement whereas the defendant Nos. l, 2 and 3 filed separate joint written statement. The defendant No. 4 stated that the suit land was originally a part of a tauzi land under Bijni Raj Estate and upon acquisition of said estate suit land was recorded as Khas land during first survey operation through mistake. The plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 4 and another brother Dulal Chandra Ghosh are brothers. They used to live on the suit land separately. In consideration of their occupation along with plaintiffs the Government incorporated their names in the records of rights. It is pleaded that in course of enquiry by the official defendant Nos. 1 and 2, it was revealed that there was several dwelling houses used by the defendant No. 4, his brother Dulal Chandra Ghosh and mother Surobala Ghosh. On such revelation, a fresh proposal for settlement of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff No. l, defendant No. 4 and another brother Dulal Chandra Ghosh was sent to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, Dispur, vide BRS -9/91/121 on 25.9.1995. On consideration of this, the Government made the modification in the settlement of the suit land. 4. It needs to be mentioned here that the suit was transferred to the learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bongaigaion, from the court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon. On the basis of the rival contentions, the learned trial court framed as many as 10 issues: “(i) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by law? (iii) Whether upon recommendation of the Land Advisory Committee and the Deputy Commissioner of Bongaigaon the Government of Assam passed order for settlement of the premium @ 100% of the market value? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs acquired right, title and interest over the suit land to the exclusion of others after issuance of new patta in his name? (v) Whether the defendant Nos. 1-3 have any right, title and authority over the suit land? (vi) Whether the defendant No. 4 and Late Dulal Chandra Ghose were permissive occupiers of a portion of the suit land having no semblance of right over the suit land? (v) Whether the defendant Nos. 1-3 have any right, title and authority over the suit land? (vi) Whether the defendant No. 4 and Late Dulal Chandra Ghose were permissive occupiers of a portion of the suit land having no semblance of right over the suit land? (vii) Whether the order of partial modification and fresh resettlement of the suit land vide letter No. RSS-494/93/38 dated 19.2.1996 is without authority and null and void and did not have any binding affect upon the plaintiff? (viii) Whether the defendant No. 4 and Late Dulal Ch. Ghose have acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of the re­settlement order dated 19.2.1996? (ix) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree the claimed? (x) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any permanent injunction?” 5. The plaintiffs examined 3 witnesses including the plaintiff No. l, Gopal Chandra Ghosh, where as the defendant No. 4 Ram Prasad Ghosh examined himself as DW1. The official defendants did not examine any witness. The plaintiffs exhibited 8 documents including the settlement order passed in their favour as Exhibit 1 and 2. Kutcha Patta was exhibited as Exhibit 3. From the records, it does not appear whether the plaintiff insisted that records of the proceeding whereby, settlement order was modified for inclusion of name of the D.W.4 in the records of rights was called for so as to ascertain as to whether the procedure as prescribed by law for cancellation/modification of the patta as laid down under rule 26 of the Settlement Rules of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, was complied with and as to whether competent person had passed this order. The learned trial court by judgment decree dated 12.6.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the suit is barred under section 154(l)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The judgment passed by the learned trial court was based on the finding in regard to the aforesaid issues but unfortunately, the issues were not mentioned in the body of the judgment. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs instituted Title Appeal No. 2 of 2002 in the court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon. The said appeal was also dismissed on 28.10.2003 by upholding the findings of the learned trial court that the suit is barred under section 154(l)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs instituted Title Appeal No. 2 of 2002 in the court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon. The said appeal was also dismissed on 28.10.2003 by upholding the findings of the learned trial court that the suit is barred under section 154(l)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. However, although the learned appellate Court took note of judgment of this court in the case of Daulat Ram Lakhani v. State of Assam and Others, 1989 (l) GLJ 37, but did not apply the said judgment is applicable in the case, in hand. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have approached this court through the present second appeal. 6. This court on 16.03.2004 admitted the second appeal on following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether a suit based on title could have been held as barred under section 154(l)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation? (b) Whether it was open to the State authority to modify a settlement behind the back of settlement holders after receiving the premium, correcting the land records and issuing a separate patta and to make the re­settlement in favour of the appellant No. l and respondent No. 4 and whether these aspects of the matter could not have been decided in the present suit? (c) Whether in absence of any counter-claim by the defendant-respondent No. 4 it was open for the learned court below that he was occupying a part of the land in his own right and was not a permissive occupier? (d) Whether the findings of the learned courts below are perverse and need interference in this Second Appeal? (e) Whether other substantial question of law which may be permitted by the court to be raised at the time of hearing?” 7. I have heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. L. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. l, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. S.S. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 8. Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned courts below did not consider the case of the plaintiffs on merit and has held the suit not maintainable because of bar under section 154(l)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. S.S. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 8. Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned courts below did not consider the case of the plaintiffs on merit and has held the suit not maintainable because of bar under section 154(l)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. In so doing, the learned court failed to take note of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Daulat Ram Lakhani (supra). 9. The law is settled that civil court has plenary jurisdiction to try all suites of civil nature excepting suites on which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. This means that unless specifically excluded by a statute either by express or implied provision, jurisdiction of civil court to try all suites has to be presumed. However, in a given case statute may create the remedy for redressal of grievances of the parties and in such event jurisdiction of the civil court may either be expressly barred or even by implication the jurisdiction of the civil court may be excluded. If the right to remedy is created by such special statute and remedy is also prescribed in it, in that event although there is no specific and express provision ousting jurisdiction of civil court, the same may be barred by implication. Even in those-cases if the procedure prescribed by the statute is not complied with or there is violation of principles of natural justice, the jurisdiction of civil court may come in (Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. AIR 1940 PC 105 , Firm Seth Radha Kishan v. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ludhiana AIR 1963 SC1547, Tara Sankar Chakraborty v. Union of India (1991) 1 GLR 42 . In the case in hand admittedly patta was issued in the name of the plaintiff. Rule 26 of the Settlement Rule framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, provides that settlement has to be confirmed by the Commissioner. The power of cancellation of a settlement has also been conferred on the Commissioner, however, after giving opportunity of hearing to settlement holder. The Rule 26 as referred to above is quoted below :....... “26. Rule 26 of the Settlement Rule framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, provides that settlement has to be confirmed by the Commissioner. The power of cancellation of a settlement has also been conferred on the Commissioner, however, after giving opportunity of hearing to settlement holder. The Rule 26 as referred to above is quoted below :....... “26. Confirmation and Cancellation of Settlements: Subject to the general control of the State Government, the Commissioner shall have power to confirm all settlements, and also to cancel any settlement made in contravention of these rules, after giving the lease-holder an opportunity of being heard.” 10. It is apparent from recital of rule 26 referred to above that all settlements of patta become final only after approval by the Commissioner and he has also the power to cancel the settlements. The rule for cancellation requires that the person in whose favour the settlement was granted has to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. Thus, the general principles of natural justice have been statutorily recognised in rule 26 of the Rules referred to above. This being the position, once it is proved that the plaintiffs were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of former settlement order, this would clearly show that the rule 26 is not complied and in that event in view of the law laid down by the Privy Council as well as by the hon’ble Supreme Court, this court is also of the view that the suit cannot be barred under section 154(l)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, statute. On the basis of materials available on records, there is no difficulty in deciding the first substantial question of law referred to above in favour of the appellants and once it is decided that the civil suit is maintainable, then impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The learned courts have not decided the suit on merit but proceeded to dismiss the suit on the point of maintainability alone. 11. Under such circumstances, the learned trial court shall proceed with trial court in accordance with law in exercise of jurisdiction invested by the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure including section 30 thereof, which empowers a court to call records from appropriate authorities fro ascertaining the truth involving a lis. 11. Under such circumstances, the learned trial court shall proceed with trial court in accordance with law in exercise of jurisdiction invested by the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure including section 30 thereof, which empowers a court to call records from appropriate authorities fro ascertaining the truth involving a lis. The parties also shall be at liberty to lead appropriate evidence to prove their respective cases. Substantial question No. (a)as to maintainability of the suit having been decided in faovour of the plaintiffs, other 4 substantial questions of law are not pressed by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and accordingly, the other questions are not answered. 12. The second appeal is allowed. The plaintiffs and the defendants shall appear before the learned trial court on 1.7.2014 to obtain necessary orders. The Registry shall send down the records immediately, so that it reaches the learned trial court much before 1.7.2014. 13. No order as to cost.