Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Arwal in Title Suit No. 10 of 2016 whereby and whereunder while considering the application dated 28.02.2018 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for marking exhibits three documents, the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding it to be barred under law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial court and has filed Title Suit No. 10 of 2016 for declaration of title of the plaintiff over schedule-1 property as well as for declaration that sale deed dated 31.08.2010 executed by defendant Bipin Kumar in favour of defendant no.1/respondent no.1 Kedar Singh with respect to Schedule-2 property is a void document. Further the plaintiff has sought relief for grant of injunction in his favour for restraining the defendants permanently from creating any trouble over Schedule-1 land. While the evidence of the plaintiff was being recorded, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner on 28.02.2018 for marking exhibits three documents i.e., certified copy of C.S. Khatiyan, order dated 24.07.2015 passed by L.R.D.C., Arwal in B.L.D.R. Case No. 43/2014-15 and report vide Letter No. 3437 dated 21.12.2015 issued by Public Information Officer-cum-Additional Collector, Gaya. However, the learned trial court without considering the matter before it and on wrong appreciation of the facts of the case, dismissed the suit. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court proceeded on the premises that in paragraph no. 24 of the plaint, the decision of L.R.D.C., Arwal dated 23.01.2016 passed in B.L.D.R. Case No. 43/2014-15 has been mentioned and the said case was dismissed after contest against the plaintiff and only remedy against this order was filing appeal before the Commissioner. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order was passed on wrong interpretation of Section 10(3) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act (for short the ‘B.L.D.R. Act’) as the plaintiff has not filed the appeal against the said order. The plaintiff has rather filed the suit for declaration of his title and for further declaration of sale deeds executed in favour of respondent no.1 to be null and void. The said remedies cannot be granted by a court under B.L.D.R. Act. Learned counsel further submits that even in the dismissal order of B.L.D.R. Case No. 43/2014-15, the L.R.D.C., Arwal held that since the complicated matter of title was involved hence, the case was dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court merely took the averment made about cause of action in paragraph no. 24 whereas the cause of action is a bundle of facts and could not be ascertained from one paragraph. Rather, the plaint as a whole is to be seen for ascertaining the cause of action. Further, the learned trial court invoked the provision of Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) without any prayer being made on behalf of the defendants and without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff to plead his case. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is thus perverse as it has been passed against the provisions of law as well as the facts on record. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court was considering the documents and whether such documents could be marked exhibits or admissible documents being relevant to the subject matter of the suit but it proceeded to dismiss the suit considering it to be barred under the law on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioner has got remedy under B.L.D.R. Act. Therefore,