The order for a de novo trial renders prior decisions inoperative until concluded, while dismissal for default does not automatically nullify preceding judgments.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Iralu, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T. Khezhie, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Rule 32 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 (for short ‘the Rules of 1937’) has been invoked for setting aside the decision/direction dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Gaonburah, Kohima Village whereby certain directions were issued to the petitioner to remove the houses constructed on or before 30.10.2024 and failing to do so, the petitioner would have to pay Rs.4,00,000/- and that the land and house would belong to them.

3. To understand the dispute, it is relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.

THE DISPUTE:

4. On 16.08.2004, the Kohima Village Council, Court passed an order on a complaint being filed by the respondent herein to the effect that the land in question would be given to the respondent and the respondent would forgive Mr. Khokhrie and party for uprooting the construction made by the respondent. Being aggrieved, the respondent Sri Khokhrie preferred an appeal before the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima under Rules of 1937. The appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.03/2004. Vide an order dated 10.09.2004, the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, while admitting the appeal stayed the order dated 16.08.2004 passed by the Kohima Village Council until further orders. Subsequent thereto, vide an order dated 28.10.2005, the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima passed an order that there would be a de novo trial in the interest of both the parties and the parties were directed to submit issues in the next hearing which was fixed on 24.11.2005.

5. Though records were called for but the said records are not available before this Court. However, from a perusal of Annexure-5 to the instant application, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent in the said proceedings on 22.03.2007 submitted before the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima that the respondent would file a plaint and accordingly, the case was fixed on 12.04.2007 for filing of the plaint. The record which is available before this Court pertains to a plaint filed by the respondent before the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland on 07.07.2008. The relief sought for in the said proceedings was declaration of the right, title and interest over the suit land in favour of the plaintiff i.e. the respondent herein; for recovery of khas possession in favour of the plaintiff if the plaintiff was found not to be in possession and for permanent injunction.

6. This Court had perused the plaint. At paragraph No.6 of the plaint, it was averred that after the civil appeal was filed, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the defendant/petitioner herein prayed to the said Court that the matter be sent for de novo due to lack of sufficient evidence and accordingly, the learned Court passed necessary order to that effect without hearing the appeal and as such, the suit was filed. In the said suit, the defendants including the petitioner herein filed written statement