Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Tadar Tarung and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Kripa Chachok (PI) and Others – Respondents
C.R.P. No. 18 (AP) of 2019
Decided On : 10-01-2024
CPC - Setting aside and quashing of civil proceedings - Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 - FIR, Mel proceedings, title suit, and preliminary objection - [CPC, Section 115, AFR, FIR, Mel proceedings, Title Suit No. 06/2018]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside and quash the impugned civil proceedings of Title Suit No. 06/2018 and two impugned orders dated 17.07.2019. The petitioners had lodged an FIR against the respondents for a land dispute. The respondents filed Title Suit No. 06/2018 seeking declaration of the allegations in the FIR as defamatory and claimed damages. The trial Court dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners against the maintainability of the title suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners' preliminary objection against the maintainability of the title suit was not maintainable and that the trial Court's orders were not erroneous. The Court also noted that the petitioners had agreed to file a written statement in the title suit and appeared before the trial Court on the next date fixed.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the title suit in light of the pending FIR, the dismissal of the preliminary objection, and the petitioners' failure to file a written statement within the specified time.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the provisions of Section 21 of the CPC were misconstrued by the petitioners and that the issue of preliminary objection in a civil suit has to be filed under the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the CPC. The Court also noted that the petitioners had other reliefs available, such as raising the issue on maintainability at the time issues are framed or deciding the issue on maintainability finally with the disposal of the suit.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits, and no orders were made as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. Heard Mr. T Shiva, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners Sri Tadar Tarung and Tadar Takia have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) praying for setting aside and quashing the impugned civil proceedings of Title Suit No. 06/2018 and the two impugned orders dated 17.07.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)– cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Ziro, Lower Subansiri district, Arunachal Pradesh. Both the petitioners are informants who have lodged the FIR dated 25.06.2017 against the accused/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein.
3. The FIR unfolds that on 24.01.2017 the present petitioners on behalf of Leyang village lodged a complaint with the ADC Nyapin against Shri Tadar Gari and Shri Tadar Tania of Panung village for settlement of land dispute of Darch-Hagam, Rayar and Langdo lands. The ADC Nyapin in accordance with the provisions of Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (AFR for short) passed an order by appointing different PIs, HGBs and GBs as Supervisors and Judges respectively. Accordingly, the Mel proceedings (local case) was held on 30.01.2017 and 15.03.2017 at ADC’s office Mell hall, Nyapin, but, the appointed Supervisors and Judges were unable to settle the land dispute between the parties. Therefore, another Mel proceeding was fixed on 10.04.2017 at the ADC’s office Mell hall, Nyapin. These Mel proceedings were set aside by this Court and the land dispute between the parties has been pending before this Court.
4. To their utter dismay, the Supervisors Sri Kipa Chachuk, Shri Tadar Pandit and the judges Shri Tadar Nikpo, HGB of Gangnee village, Shri Tamey Tamar, HGB of Hiya-II village, Shri Kipa Tada, HGB of Pingchi village, Shri Kipa Nima, HGB of Chebang village and Shri Gyamar Takar, GB of Gyamar village, prepared a false report and declaration of the Mel proceeding dated 30.01.2017, 15.03.2017 and 10.04.2017 after accepting gratification from Abu Tamey.
5. The above-named PIs, GBs and HGBs who are also arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 6 herein have already cheated Sri Tadar Nyakum who was also one of the judges and he was induced to affix his signature on the false report and Mel proceeding. Tadar Nyakum is arrayed as respondent No. 7 herein. When the FIR was not registered, a complaint was lodged before the Superintendent of Police/DSP of Kurung Kumey district Koloriang, Arunachal Pradesh on 19.07.2017 but the Superintendent also ignored the complaint and the petitioners were impelled to move the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 04/2017 in this Court with a prayer for direction to register the FIR dated 25.06.2017 against the respondents No. 1 to 6.
6. The aforementioned manipulated documents were issued by the respondents to procure a decree through a title suit being Title Suit No. 06/2018 on the strength of the false declaration and report of Mel proceeding mentioned above. The respondents also managed to destroy/lose the original records of Langdo land from the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) Nyapin, Kurung Kumey district, Arunachal Pradesh. Then, a complaint vide CR Case No. 32/2018 was filed before the Magistrate’s Court. The learned trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2018 (Annexure-B) directed the Nyapin police to register a criminal case against the respondents No. 1 to 7 on the basis of the allegations leveled in the FIR dated 25.06.2017.
7. Thereafter, the respondents have filed a title suit registered as Title Suit No. 06/2018 seeking declaration of the allegations leveled against them in the FIR dated 25.06.2017 lodged with the Officer-In-Charge of Nyapin Police Station as defamatory statements and the respondents claimed a consequential relief of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs) as damages for mental agony and slur on their reputation. The tria
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 21 of the CPC were misconstrued by the petitioners, and the issue of preliminary objection in a civil suit has to be....
Amendments in plaint – Court should adopt a liberal approach but it shall not permit party to amend pleading if it alters basic structure of suit.
All contesting parties in suit must get fair opportunity to contest suit on merits in accordance with law.
The court held that procedural unfairness due to technical irregularities can justify allowing the filing of Written Statements after delays, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural str....
The court established that a suit seeking similar relief to an ongoing execution proceeding under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is not maintainable, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the executing cou....
Suit barred due to lack of objection against record of rights; civil court jurisdiction excluded under specific statutory provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the court to scrutinize the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon to ascertain the existence of a cause of action. Addi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
