Smti Bahunlin Chyne vs . Smti Streamlet Kharngapkynta & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 152 Meg

 Serial No. 40
 Regular List
                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                              AT SHILLONG

CRP No. 37 of 2019
                                               Date of Decision: 20.04.2022

Smti Bahunlin Chyne             Vs.   Smti Streamlet Kharngapkynta & Ors.

Coram:
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)       :     Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, Sr. Adv. with
                                  Mr. R. Kharsyad, Adv.
                                  Mr. C.C.T Sangma, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)       :     Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, Sr. Adv. with

Ms. G. Kynta, Adv.

i)     Whether approved for reporting in                     Yes/No
       Law journals etc:

ii)    Whether approved for publication                      Yes/No
       in press:




                  JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The issue that has been raised before this Court is with regard

the power of the Judge, District Council Court to exercise original

jurisdiction in the trial of a Title Suit, which has been brought before the

District Council Court for adjudication. It appears that an original suit being

Title Suit No. 1 of 2018, along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1

and 2 of the CPC, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2018 had

been filed before the District Council Court, and the Judge, District Council

Court by exercising powers of original jurisdiction had taken up the same

and an exparte ad-interim injunction order dated 08.02.2018 was passed,

restraining the petitioner/defendant from entering the suit land.

2. As the Judge had exercised powers of original jurisdiction, the

petitioner by way of a petition had questioned the jurisdiction of the Judge,

District Council Court in entertaining the Suit. The Judge, District Council

Court then by the impugned order dated 22.08.2019, dismissed the said

petition by holding that Rule 30 and 32 of The United Khasi Jaintia Hills

Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 ( hereinafter

referred to as the Rules of 1953) provides for such eventualities, whereby

the court of the Judge District Council Court is competent to try a civil suit

by itself.

3. The grievance of the petitioner which has however, remained is

that the Judge District Council Court, in exercising such power should

assign reasons as to why the said civil suit has been taken to be tried by

itself, and not endorsed to any other Subordinate District Council Court. It

is submitted by the petitioner that though the reason given in the impugned

order is that the Presiding Officer of the Subordinate District Council Court

is overburdened, the exercise of this jurisdiction is totally without any

reason or basis, as it was not as per the scope and ambit of the Rules of

1953. The learned Senior counsel submits that Rule 32 (a) and (b) speaks

of the situation when the Judge District Council Court, may try a Title Suit,

and that is, only if it appears, that a fair and impartial inquiry is not possible

by any Village Court or Subordinate District Council Court, or that some

question of law, tribal or otherwise of unusual difficulty is likely to arise,

which the learned Senior counsel contends is not the case in the instant

matter.

4. Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. G.

Kynta, learned counsel for the respondent though had initially challenged

the maintainability of the revision application on several grounds, such as

non-joinder of necessary parties and that the same has been filed with an

oblique intention, without giving the Judge the opportunity to defend

himself, has also made submissions on the question of law surrounding this

particular issue, and submits that by the operation of Rule 18 of the Rules

of 1953, the Subordinate District Council Court is competent to try civil

suits not triable by a Village Court, but that the same is subject to Rule 19

of the Rules of 1953. He further submits Rule 19 provides that the

Additional Subordinate District Council Court is competent to try all civil

suits not triable by a Village Court in which all the parties reside or hold

land within its jurisdiction. He submits that in view of the position of law,

the Subordinate District Council Court by the operation of Rule 18, will

also be precluded from taking up this matter. He however, concedes that he

has no objection if the suit is remanded back and endorsed afresh to any

other Subordinate District Council Court, as in the impugned order it is

clearly mentioned that the only difficulty is the non-availability of

Subordinate District Council Court, Judge.

5. Having heard the learned Senior counsels for the parties and

considering the circumstances and situation at it pertains today, especially

the fact that there are other Subordinate District Council Court Judges

available to take up the matter, the legality of the reason ascribed in the

impugned order does not survive for consideration. Further, the learned

Judge has in the impugned order itself stated as follows:-

"Therefore, in view of the facts that at present, there is only one Court of the Subordinate District Council Courts which has been flooded with suits/cases, hence, this Court takes this matter as an exceptional case and the same will be endorsed, the moment new Presiding Officer is appointed."

The further points as raised by the learned counsels for the

parties, especially by Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, may be kept open and be looked

into, when an issue arises, which will demand the interpretation and the

inter-play of Rules 18 and 19 of The United Khasi Jaintia Hills

Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953.

6. Accordingly, this revision application is disposed of, with the

direction that the Judge, District Council Court on receipt of the records

from this Court, shall endorse the matter to any Presiding Officer of the

Subordinate District Council Court, who shall take up the Title Suit No. 1

of 2018 along with the Misc. Case No. 1 of 2018 for disposal.

7. It is also made clear that the findings or observations made

today by this this Court, or by the learned Judge in the earlier proceedings,

shall not influence the decision of the Trial Court in any manner in the

proceedings that are yet to re-commence.

8. The instant matter accordingly stands disposed of.

9. Registry is directed to transmit back the records immediately.

10. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Meghalaya 20.04.2022 "V. Lyndem-PS"