Shri Inkongngangba & Ors. vs The State Of Nagaland & Ors.

Heard Mr. Imti Longjem, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. T. B. Jamir, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 7.

This appeal, under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellants, namely, Shri Inkongngangba and 27 others,impugning the order dated 19.01.2024, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mokokchung, in Civil Misc. Application Nos. 2/2023 and 3/2023 arising out of Civil Suit No. 1/2022, whereby, the plaint filed by the present appellants was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present appellants, as plaintiffs, had filed a suit before the Court of learned District Judge, Mokokchung, registered as Civil Suit No. 1/2022, praying for a decree of declaration of their right and interest over the suit land as well as restoration of possession of the suit land and also compensation as per provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

It was pleaded by the present appellants in the plaint filed in the aforementioned civil suit that the respondent No.7, i.e., the nd Commandant 2 Nagaland Armed Police, Alichen Sector had forcefully occupied an area of about four hundred acres of land belonging to the present appellants at Longkhum village under Alichen Sector by setting up nd 2 Nagaland Armed Police camp there. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the respondent No. 7 is under the occupation of the lands belonging to appellants without making payment of any compensation towards the value of the land. It has been alleged by the present appellants, in their plaint, in the aforementioned civil suit, that the defendants who are the State functionaries and responsible officers of the State of Nagaland have illegally occupied the land belonging to the present appellants without acquiring the said land as per the provisions of law.

The appellants have claimed to inherited the suit land from their ancestors who were enjoying the said land since time immemorial, practicing the village tradition of joint cultivation of village land as per customary practices and usages of the Longkhum village till it was forcefully occupied by the armed forces personnel way back in early 1960’s. It was also pleaded in the plaint that though later on the armed forces personnel left that place, they allowed the Nagaland police to enter into possession of land in spite of protest by the then village leaders who were the predecessors of the present appellants.

It is further pleaded in the plaint that after illegal occupation nd of the land by the 2 Nagaland Police Battalion, the landowners of Longkhum Village, Alichen sector held an emergency meeting on 15.11.1969 and took a resolution to demand compensation in respect of damage of the plantation but not for selling the land.

It is further pleaded in the plaint that the predecessors of the present appellants repeatedly approached the competent authorities of Nagaland Police Department seeking compensation for forceful dispossession of their land and on such approach being made, the State Government released the compensation in respect of damage caused to the plantation in the Alichen sector of Longkhum Village during 1970’s. However, it is contended in the plaint that the appellants were not compensated in respect of the land which has been forcefully occupied initially by the personnel of armed forces and thereafter by Nagaland police.

It is also alleged in the plaint that when the present appellants approached the respondent authorities, they were intimated that the said land has been acquired by the respondents by way of purchase. However, no documents were furnished to the appellants by the respondent authorities on their repeated requests. As such, the appellants sought information by filing RTI applications for providing the documents in connection with acquisition of land as well as sale deed, if there is any.

It is further pleaded in the plaint that on the basis of RTI application, the Public Information Officer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung provided copies of some purported sale agreements which were executed between the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung and the villagers in the year 1974. The appellants had, in their plaint questioned the veracity of the said purported sale agreement as in the said agreements land was identified by showing dag numbers even though the lands in Alichen sector of Longkhum village are non-cadastral lands. The appellants in their plaint have pleaded that the suit land has never been acquired by the respondent authorities as per the provision of the law governing the acquisition of land in the State of Nagaland.

It is also pleaded in the plaint that in the year 2021, when the appellants and other villagers of the Longkhum village started developing their land for road connectivity, the defendant No. 5 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung, Nagaland issued a restraint order prohibiting the villagers from doing any activity for road development in the said land in the vicinity of Second Nagaland Armed Police Battalion, Alichen firing range. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the present appellants were informed by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung that the documents pertaining to land acquisition at Alichen Sector is not available in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung. The said intimation was given by the letter of SDO (Civil), Mokokchung dated 28.05.2004.

The suit land has been described in the schedule mentioned in paragraph Nos. 36 of the plaint filed by the appellants in the above-mentioned civil suit. The cause of action for the aforesaid civil suit has been stated, in the plaint, by the present appellants as the arbitrary and illegal occupation of the suit land, over which the appellants have ancestral rights, by the personnel of armed forces and thereafter by the Second Nagaland Armed Police Battalion without paying any compensation to them for the value of their land. In paragraph No. 37 of the plaint, the cause of action has been stated to arose in the 1960s and thereafter in 1969 and on subsequent dates.

In the aforesaid civil suit, the defendant Nos. 3, 6 and 7 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a)(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not discloses any cause of action as well as the said suit is barred under Section 17of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. The defendant Nos. 3, 6 and 7 also took the plea that the Civil Suit No. 1/2022 is also barred by limitation, as it has been filed belatedly after lapse of about 45 years from the date of issuance of notification (18.04.1974) under Section 9 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 for acquisition of the said th land. The notification dated 18 April, 1974, under Section 9 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 was also annexed along with the application filed by the above-mentioned defendants. On the basis of the said application, I.A.(C) No. 2/2022 was registered in connection with Civil Suit No. 1/2022.

Similarly, the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in Civil Suit No. 1/2022 also filed an application before the Trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejecting the plaint on the grounds that firstly that the present appellants/plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit land; secondly, that the suit land has not been described in the plaint as per the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and lastly, that the suit is barred by Section 3 and Section 27 of the Limitation Act 1963, inasmuch as the suit land was acquired by the Government in the year 1974 and since then was in the continuous th possession of the defendants. The notification dated 18 April, 1974 under Section 9 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, th 1965, which was published in the Nagaland Gazette on 15 May, 1974, was also annexed along with the aforesaid application. On the basis of the said application, I.A.(C) No. 3/2022 was registered in connection with Civil Suit No. 1/2022.

The Trial Court by the impugned order dated 19.01.2024, disposed of both the above-mentioned Civil Miscellaneous Application, (Civil Misc. Application Nos. 2/2023 and 3/2023, by holding that the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2022 is barred by Section 17 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. It Also held that in the aforesaid suit does not disclose any cause of action. It further held that the averments made in the plaint clearly show that the suit is also barred by limitation. As such, the aforesaid suit falls within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and accordingly rejected the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of rejection of plaint, the plaintiffs, as appellants have filed the instant civil appeal.

Mr. Imti Longjem, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint filed by the present appellants in that in Civil Suit No. 1/2022 without taking into consideration the fact that the averments made by the present appellants as plaintiffs in their plaint filed in the aforesaid civil suit clearly discloses the cause of action for filing the above-mentioned suit. He submits that the respondents authority, more particularly, the respondent No. 7 have unauthorizedly occupied the suit land belonging to the predecessors of the present appellants without lawfully acquiring the said land by following the procedures prescribed under the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965.

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present appellants, as plaintiffs have clearly stated, in their plaint,that they have inherited the suit property from their predecessors, who had possessed and cultivated the suit land as per the tradition of the Longkhum village since time immemorial and they have also clearly nd indicated the fact of forceful occupation of their land by the 2 Nagaland Police Battalion without paying any compensation for the value of the land. He submits that under such circumstances, the cause of action for filing the Civil Suit No. 1/2022 has been clearly disclosed in the plaint which, the trial court has erroneously failed to appreciate.

He further submits that the respondent authorities have failed to show as to whether the suit land has been acquired or whether same has been purchased by them as in the reply to the RTI applications filed by the plaintiffs, the PIO, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung had furnished with them certain documents which are purported to be sale agreements in respect of the suit land. As such, he submits that if the respondents claim to have purchased the suit land, same was also not in accordance with law as the purported sale deeds were not registered as required by law. He further submits that in the absence of registration of the purported sale deed, same cannot be stated to have conferred a valid title in respect of the suit land in favor of the respondent No. 7.

He further submits that the appellants cannot be deprived of their right over the suit land as the right over property has been recognized not only as constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, but also as human rights. He further submits that when the land belonging to the predecessors of the present appellants were forcefully occupied during 1960’s by the personnel of armed forces, the right to property was a fundamental right under Constitution of India, he submits that though after 1978, the said righthas been made a constitutional right under Article 300A, the appellants cannot be deprived of their property (suit land) without due process of law.

He submits that in the instant case, the procedure prescribed by the provisions of Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 as well as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not followed as the State respondents have failed to show any award being passed, if the land has been acquired under Section 11 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 as well as Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

He submits that the State cannot take plea of adverse possession against its own citizens as same would undermine the constitutional rights guaranteed to the citizens in respect of property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India as well as same would also erode public trust in the Government.

He submits that forcible dispossession of the predecessors of present appellants from the suit land without following due process of law is violative of constitutional right as well as human rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He submits that plea of adverse possession by the State respondent against its own citizens is untenable in law and as such the suit filed by the present appellants cannot be barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

He further submits that the question of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and same can be decided only after proof of pleaded facts during the trial. As such, he submits that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Trial Court was not right in holding that the suit of the plaintiffs/present appellant is barred by limitation.

The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the plea of the appellants in the plaint that the purported sale deeds on the basis of which the respondent authorities have claimed rights over this suit land can be proved only during the course of the trial of the civil suit. As such, the civil suit is not barred under the facts and circumstances of this case.

The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that alternatively even if it is assumed for argument's sake that the suit filed by the present appellants is barred under Section 17 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 and as such the plaint filed by them is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, the observation made by the Trial Court in the impugned order that there is no disclosure of cause of action as well as the observation that the suit is barred by law of limitation is uncalled for and would be prejudicial to the present appellants in the event they choose to approach the writ court for challenging the purported acquisition proceedings by which they were only paid the compensation in respect of damages caused to the plantations over the suit land. As such, he submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited following rulings: -

“Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. (APSEZL)” reported in“(2022) 15 SCC 110”

“Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. The Central Bank of ^{India” reported in} “^{(2020) 17 SCC 260”}

“Chhotanben Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar”, reported in“(2018) 6 SCC 422”

“Vinod Infra Developers Limited Vs. Mahaveer Lunia and others” reported in“2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208”

“Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association” reported in“(2005) 7 SCC 510”

“Mongia Realty &Buildwell Private Limited Vs. Manik Sethi” reported in “(2022) 11 SCC 572”

“Narne Rama Murthy Vs. Ravula Somasundaram and Others” reported in“(2005) 6 SCC 614”

“State of Haryana Vs. Amin Lal (Since Deceased) through his LRS” reported in“2024 SCC OnLine SC 3368”

“Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh” reported in“(2020) 2 SCC 569”

“Pushpa Devi Vs. State (UT of J&K)” reported in“2026 SCC OnLine J&K 240”

“Trailokya Nath Vs. Praikshit Das” reported in“2014 5 GLR 728”

“Dagadabai (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Abbas alias Gulab Rustum Pinjari” reported in“(2017) 13 SCC 705”;

“Tukaram Kana Joshi Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation” reported in“(2013) 1 SCC 353”

“Sukh Dutt Ratra Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh” reported in“(2022) 7 SCC 508”

“Kedar Nath Yadav Vs. State of West Bengal” reported in“(2017) 11 SCC 601”;

“Kulsum R. Nadiadwala &Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra &Ors.” reported in“(2012) 6 SCC 348”

“Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar” reported in“(2007) 11 SCC 447”

“Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A. Shaikh &Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in“(2014) 8 SCC 425”

“Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner” reported in“(1978) 1 SCC 405”

“Dhulabhai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in “1968 SCC OnLine SC 40”

“Firm Seth Radha Kishan Vs. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ludhiana” reported in“1963 SCC OnLine SC 138”

On the other hand, Mr. T. B. Jamir, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 7 has submitted that the Trial Court has correctly rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure after carefully examining the averments made in the plaint by the present appellants as well as after considering the documents annexed along with the plaint.

He submits that the averments made in the plaint as well as documents annexed therewith clearly indicates that the suit land was acquired by the respondent authorities under the provisions of Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 as well as under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He submits that the documents annexed with the plaint, more specifically, the money receipts, wherein the owners of the land have acknowledged receipt of value offull price of land is indicative of the fact that the compensation paid to them was not only for damage caused to the plantation, but also for the value of the land.

He further submits that though the notification issued under Section 9 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 has not been annexed along with the plaint. However, in their application under Orders 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed before the Trial Court, the present respondents have produced the same before the Trial Court and as the said notification had been published in the official gazette, the Courts may take judicial notice of the same. He, however, submits that in the instant case, the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has not relied upon the aforesaid notification. Rather, it had only considered the averments made in the plaint as well as documents annexed therewith to come to the conclusion that the Civil Suit No. 1/2022 filed by the present appellants is barred by Section 17 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965.

He submits that under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the claim discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments made in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. He further submits that in the instant case, the present appellants in their plaint have not challenged the acquisition proceeding by which the suit land has been acquired by the respondents. He submits that without challenging the acquisition proceeding, the appellants have only questioned the purported deed of sale which were in fact agreement arrived at between the owners of the land and the respondent authorities under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He submits that mere use of the term deed of sale in the aforesaid agreements would not make the same as sale deeds as same were only agreement arrived at between the owners of the land and the respondent authorities in terms of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

He submits that it is settled legal proposition that challenge to consequential orders without challenging the basic order/statutory provisions on the basis of which the order has been passed cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is a legal obligation on the part of the party to challenge the basic order and only if same is found to be wrong, the consequential order may be examined.

He further submits that the present appellants, in the plaint, have prayed for compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of“State of Nagaland and Ors. Vs. Medoselhou Keretsu and Ors.” [Judgment dated 05.06.2026, WA No. 7/2025] has agreed with the legal proposition that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would not be applicable to the State of Nagaland without taking recourse to special provision enshrined under Article 371A (a)(iv) of the Constitution of India. As such, the relief sought for by the present appellants in the Civil Suit No. 1/2022 may not be granted to them and the Trial Court was right in holding that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.

He further submits that the Trial Court was also correct in holding that the present suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as admittedly the predecessors-in-interest of the present appellants were dispossessed from the suit land during 1960s. However, it is only after lapse of more than 45 years of said disposition, the appellants have filed the connected suit without challenging the acquisition proceeding or even praying for any relief or declaring the purported sale deeds as void. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 7 has cited following rulings: -

“Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead” reported in“(2020) 7 SCC 366”

“Rajendra Bajoria Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan” reported in“(2022) 12 SCC 641”;

“Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs. &Ors. Vs. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs. &Ors.” reported in“(2010) 1 SCC 756”;

“Sh. NardevSoni and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.” [Judgment dated 05.07.2022, W.P.(C) No. 7815/2022];

“Pradip J. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad” reported in “(2008) 14 SCC 283”;

“Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust &Ors. Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. reported in“(2024) 15 SCC 675”;

“Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jagan Singh and Ors.” reported in“2023 SCC OnLine SC 833”;

“Hirolfsberg Rongphar Vs. Registrar, Assam University, Silchar and 4 Ors.” reported in “2017(1) GLT 745”.

Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, appearing for the State respondent has adopted the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 7. He submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action as well as suit being barred by law of limitation and barred by Section 17 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. He submits that the law of limitation is founded on the public policy i.e., it is for the general welfare that the period of limitation be put to litigation.

He submits that the object is to put end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation, as it is futile to keep the litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. He submits that the concept of law against immortal litigation has been adopted under the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 and same has been rightly applied to the facts and circumstances of this case by the Trial Court. As such, he submits that the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. In support of his submission, he has cited following rulings: -

“PathapatiSubba Reddy Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)” reported in“(2024) 12 SCC 336”

“Uma Devi and Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar and Ors.” reported in“(2025) 5 SCC 198”

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both the parties in support of their respective submissions.

The point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the Trial Court was correct in rejecting the plaint filed by the present appellants in Civil Suit No. 1/2022 for the reasons cited by it in the impugned judgment.

To consider the above-mentioned point, it would be convenient to reproduce the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as follows:-

On bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it appears that a duty is cast upon the Civil Court to verify as to whether any of the grounds stated in Order 7 Rule 11 (a) to (e)exists in a particular case, and if it comes to conclusion that any of such ground exists, it is incumbent on the said Court to reject the claim under such circumstances.

Let us examine whether the ground stated in Order 7 Rule 11(d) exists in the instant case. The clause (d) of the aforesaid provision provides that where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.

On perusal of the averments made in the plaint, it appears that the appellants have admitted the receipt of compensation though same is stated to be the compensation in respect of the damaged plantation over the suit land. On perusal of the averments made in paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 28, of the plaint, when considered along with the documents annexed with the plaint, more specifically the receipts whereby the landowners have acknowledged the receipt of full price of land in respect of which sale agreement were entered into between the owners of the land and the respondent authorities, it appears that there was some kind of acquisition proceedings for taking possession of the suit land by the respondent No. 7. Thus, this Court is in agreement with the Trial Court whereby it has held that the averment made in the plaint along with the annexures filed therewith discloses that the land has been acquired in the instant case. Though, the appellants have the right to question the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the mandatory provisions contained in the law governing acquisition of land in the State of Nagaland were not followed at the time of awarding compensation to the appellants in respect of their lands, however, whether any suit may be filed for the same is the question involved in this case.

This Court is of considered opinion that the question as to whether the acquisition proceedings were in terms of the provisions contained under the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 as well as under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 may not be raised in a civil suit in view of the provisions contained in Section 17 of the said Act which provides as follows: -

Though, there may not be any bar for challenging the same in a writ proceeding before a writ court, however, the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 clearly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of any order made or decision made in exercise of any powers conferred by or under the aforesaid Act. As such, the provision contained in Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable under the facts and circumstances of this case.

However, this Court is not in agreement with the observation made by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment to the effect that the plaint on its face does not disclose any cause of action.

Though, the phrase "cause of action" has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, its meaning has been settled by several decisions of Apex Court. The phrase "cause of action" means bundles of essential facts that give rise to an enforceable right and its corresponding infringement, enabling the party to claim a legal relief against the defendant.

In the instant case, the averments made in the plaint clearly discloses that the present appellants as plaintiffs have claimed hereditary right over the suit land which was possessed and cultivated by their ancestors according to tradition followed in the Longkhum village. It also has been averred in the plaint that the predecessors of the present appellants were illegally dispossessed by the respondent, more specifically, respondent No. 7 without paying any compensation against the value of the land from which they were dispossessed.

As such, this Court is of considered opinion that the averments made in plaint does disclose the cause of action. The question as to whether the plaintiffs will be able to prove the fact averred in the plaint or whether they will be able to satisfy the Court that they are entitled to get a decree as prayed for is a separate question and same is not to be considered while assessing as to whether plaint discloses a cause of action for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

As such, the finding of the Trial Court in the impugned judgment that the averment made in the plaint does not discloses a cause of action is hereby set aside to that extent.

As regards the question as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not, this Court is of considered opinion that the question of the suit being barred by limitation may be ascertained by the Civil Court only if it has the jurisdiction to try the suit. However, if it lacks jurisdiction even to entertain the suit, the question of same being barred by limitation does not arise and may not be considered by the Civil Court.

In the instant case, when once it has been held that the civil suit is barred by Section 17 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 and that the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, the question whether the same is barred by law of limitation does not arise as the said question would have arisen only if such a civil suit could have been filed at all and the Civil Court could have exercised jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute involved in the suit. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court has erred in making observation in the impugned order that the suit filed by the present appellants is barred by limitation.

In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court was right in rejecting the plaint filed by the present appellants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of suit being barred under Section 17 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. However, the Trial Court has erred in making observation in the impugned order to the effect that the plaint discloses no cause of action as well as that the suit is barred by law of limitation. The said observations made by the Trial Court in the impugned order is hereby set aside.

This appeal is accordingly partly allowed without disturbing the order of rejection of suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Send back the records of Trial Court to the Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.