These 2 (two) revision petitions are directed against a common judgment and order passed by the learned ADC (J) Mokokchung in Civil Appeal No.3 of 1996. Similar grounds have been taken in both the petitions. Hence by a common judgment I propose to dispose of these 2 (two) petitions.

2.1 have heard Mr. CT Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents at length. Learned counsel of both sides have taken me through relevant documents filed in the above petitions including the impugned orders passed by the learned ADC (J) Mokokchung. Further relevant Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police which are in vogue in the State of Nagaland have also been perused with the help of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. After giving thought to the various grounds that have been raised in the above petitions. I am of the view that I need not decide the merit of the case. Mr. CT Jamir submits that in the nature of the present case the provision of Order 21 Rule 37 CPC will not come into play inasmuch as the matter does not relate money suit. It has also been contended that the impugned orders having been passed without hearing necessary parties, the impugned orders should be rendered nullity. It has also been further urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Village Council of Khar village ought to have been impleaded when the aforesaid appeal was heard by the learned ADC (J) Mokokchung. Another point that has been urged before me on behalf of the petitioner is that whereas the learned ADC (J) saw it fit to examine witnesses while disposing of the above appeal, since the petitioner was not present at the time of hearing, he had no opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses who were examined in the present case. As such it is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is failure of justice. I would not like to discuss the objections reaised on behalf of the petitioner as I have stated above inasmuch as in my view in the present case I am called upon to decide a question as to whether the learned ADC (J) has the jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid appeal. I say so because the main ground taken in the present petition is that under the relevant rules for the administration of justice, there is no provision for the learned ADC (J) to decide the present matter in an appeal.

4. Some provisions of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police, 1971 have been amended. By section 20 of the Act of 1984 Rule 34 of the principal rules has been substituted and numbered as Rule 29. Section 18 of the Amendment Act states :

"Rule 31 of the principal rule shall be deleted."

In view of the section 18 as stated above, the petitioner submits that the • learned ADC (J) Mokokchung is not competent to hear appeal from any decision made by a Village Council inasmuch as there is no provision under the Rules authorising the learned ADC (J) to exercise appellate jurisdiction. In order to examine this submission Rule 31 of the principal rules is extracted :

"31. An appeal shall lie from the decision of the mauzadar, gaonbura, chief, headman of a khel or other duly recognised village authorities (to the tribal Court whenever constituted or otherwise) to the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistant. A record shall be made of the matter in dispute and the decision of the village authorities. If necessary, the Court shall examine the parties, and, if the decision appears to be just, shall affirm and enforce it as one of its own. If the Court sees reason to doubt the justice of the decision, it will try the case denovo, or refer it to a Panchayat as above."

5. As regards the submission made by Mr. Jamir regarding Rule 31 of the principal rules, Mr. BN Sarma has referred me to three subsequent notifications issued by the State Govt. as regards the above Third Amendment. Notification dated 14th March. 1989 states :

"No.LAW-166/83 : In exercise of the power conferr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document