Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.N. Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioners. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for setting aside the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Barpeta in Misc. (J) Case No. 9/2016 along with a prayer to hold that the decree dated 17.5.04 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Barpeta in Title Suit No. 85/2003 is a nullity and, therefore, not executable. The order dated 7.4.2017 was passed on a petition filed by the present petitioners under Section 47 of the CPC.

2. The learned executing Court construed the petition to be a frivolous petition and dismissed the same with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).

3. The present petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 are the sons of one Mozibar Rahman and the petitioner No. 8 is the wife of Mozibar Rahman.

4. The respondent had filed a suit against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and some others (copy of the plaint is not annexed), which was registered as Title Suit No. 85/2003. From the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 17.05.2004, which is annexed as Annexure-1, it appears that the suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of khas possession in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule land; for cancellation of mutation dated 24.06.1976 in favour of the defendant; for a declaration that a deed being Deed No. 5850 dated 28.9.67 is forged and illegal; for issuing a precept to the revenue authority for mutation of the name of the plaintiff over the suit land as well as for permanent injunction. The suit was contested and was finally decreed by the aforesaid judgment dated 17.05.2004.

5. It appears from the impugned order dated 07.04.2017 that the matter finally reached this Court in a second appeal registered as RSA No. 13/2006. During the course of the argument, Mr. Karmakar had handed over a copy of the judgment dated 28.9.2015 passed in RSA No. 13/2006.

6. A perusal of the said judgment goes to show that Mozibar Rahman, i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, was the appellant and that the appeal was dismissed.

7. Referring to Paragraph 6 of the petition under Section 47 of the CPC, Mr. Karmakar has submitted that because of the grounds stated therein, the decree passed in Title Suit No. 85/2003 is a nullity and, therefore, not executable.

8. At the very outset, it will be appropriate to extract herein below the grounds of objection in the said petition under Section 47 of the CPC at Paragraph 6:-

"6. That the petitioners beg to submit that the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2004 (Annexure-1) passed by this Hon'ble Court in T.S. No. 85/2003 is a nullity and this decree dated 17.05.2004 is not executable on the following grounds of objection:-

(i) Because it is evident from judgment and decree dated 17.05.2004 (Annexure-2) passed in T.S. No. 85/2003 that the respondent has not sued upon any document of title but has sued upon revenue records which are not documents of title. The respondent's title to lands described in schedules A and B of the said decree has been declared on interpretation of revenue records. So, the decree is not passed on law. Supreme Court has held in a case reported in AIR 1989 SC 1809 (Corporation of the City Bangalore v. M. Pappiah), 'revenue records are not documents of little, and interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law'.

(ii) Because it is evident from judgment and decree dated 17.05.2004 (Annexure-1) passed in T.S. No. 85/2003 that this Hon'ble Court has cancelled the mutation order dated 24.06.76 passed by the SDC, Kalgachia Revenue Circle in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners in connection with lands described in schedules A and B of the decree. In this context, it is submitted that mutation order dated 24.06.76 is not an instrument (i.e., deed). So, Civil Court is not authorized to cancel such mutation order by exercising its powers gi