The central legal point established is that the District Dobashis Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the case without formal referral by a competent authority, as per Rule 23A of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland.

M.B.K. Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionists and Mr. T. Pongener, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

2. This revision petition has been filed challenging the legality of the proceeding pending before the District Customary Court/District Dobashi Law Court, Mokokchung, Nagaland in connection with which the said Court has been taking steps for securing the attendance of the present 2 (two) revisionists before it.

3. I have perused the records. It is ascertained that on failure to secure the attendance of the said two revisionists through summons issued to them and also through summons to their relatives, the said Court issued letter dated 18.8.2006 to Unger Council Chairman and Ungma Council Chairman to produce before it the two revisionists with three representatives of each of the two revisionists on 6.9.2006 at 10 A.M. It is also ascertained that the said proceeding before the said Court was in connection with a case bearing summon No. 400 dated 11.5.2006 filed by Mr. Bendangtoshi (the respondent No. 1 herein) for the recovery of a sum of Rs.4.93 Lakhs (Rupees four lakhs ninety three thousand) only said to have been taken from him as loan by Mr. Masachuba of Unger Village and Mrs. Imtila Longkumtser of Ungma village. Further, as per records, apparently, not knowing the whereabout of the said two loanees, the said Court has been taking steps for securing the presence of the two revisionists who are brothers of the said loanees.

4. The two revisionists are aggrieved by the said steps taken by the Court for securing their presence before it even after having knowledge that they are not having knowledge about the where about of the two loanees as well as about the said loan. According to them, the said Court has been proceeding with the case without jurisdiction.

5. There is no dispute that the Administration of Civil Justice in the State of Nagaland is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner. Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Customary Court constituted under Chapter-IVA of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937, Dobashis and other village authorities may be appointed by the State Govt. from time to time by Notification in the official Gazette. However, as per Rule 23A of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937, the Dobashis shall have jurisdiction to try and decide such civil cases only as may be referred to them by the Deputy Commissioner or Addl. Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be. Accordingly, only those civil cases referred to them by the Deputy Commissioner or Addl. Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be are to be tried and decided by the Dobashis.

6. It is the case of the two revisionists that the case before the District Dobashis Court, Mokokchung, Nagaland was never referred to it by any competent authority. On perusal of the records, it is ascertained that no case was filed formally by the present respondent No. 1 before any of the competent authorities i.e., the Deputy Commissioner or the Addl. Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. As per records before this Court, with reference to an application submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung, Nagaland by the present respondent No. 1 praying purportedly for endorsement of the case to the Court of Dobashis, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung passed an order on 9.5.2006 on the said application itself endorsing the case to the Court of Dobashis for disposal. It is not known as to why and how, the said application addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung was put up before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung. In the said application, it is stated about enclosing of a draft; but no draft is found in the record. It cannot be ascertained if the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner,