A court vested with jurisdiction cannot abdicate its duty to adjudicate a dispute after evidence has been recorded. If a party fails to appear after participating in proceedings, the court must proceed ex-parte rather than declining to decide the matter, as such inaction constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Budi Habung, J.

Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the MEL order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the village authority of Model Village, Naharlagun. By the said order, the customary court, after recording the statement of the complainant side and noting the absence of the respondent, refrained from deciding the dispute on merits and advised/recommended the petitioner/complainant to approach the regular civil court for adjudication.

3. Mr. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had filed a complaint dated 31.07.2025 against the respondent before the village authority of Model Village, Naharlagun. The ground for the complaint is that the respondent denied that his step-father, Late Taba Tagra, had any immovable property at Model Village, Naharlagun. Upon receipt of the complaint, the customary court issued notice dated 17.08.2025 by way of serving Parwana to the respondent for his appearance on dated 30.08.2025. In response, the respondent participated in the MEL proceedings before the customary court by filing a written statement on 28.08.2025. Upon receipt of the statement/objection from the respondent on dated 28.08.2025, the MEL was conducted at Model Village, Naharlagun on dated 30.08.2025. However, the respondent did not attend the MEL proceeding. During the MEL proceedings, the petitioner was heard, and the statement of one of the witnesses was recorded, who confirmed and clarified that the respondent had received Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on behalf of Late Taba Tagra from the petitioner as consideration for land measurement of 4000 sq. mtrs located at Model Village, Naharlagun. However, despite hearing the witnesses and parties, the village authority refrained from passing a final decision and instead directed the parties to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

4. He further submits that under Section 44 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2023, the village authority may take ex-parte decision if one of the disputing parties does not turn up or remain absent willfully on three consecutive times after giving not less than 30 days on each occasion of reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 44 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2023 being relevant is reproduced bellow:

“(4) The Village authority or the inter-village territorial council or Apex Council, as the case may be, may pronounce or take an ex-parte decision, if one of the disputing parties does not turn up or remain absent willfully on three consecutive times after giving not less than thirty days on each occasion of reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

5. In the instant case, the respondent participated in the trial proceedings before the customary court by filing his written statement; however, on the date of hearing, i.e., on dated 30.08.2025, he deliberately remained absent. Under the circumstances, as per the aforesaid provision of AFR, the customary court ought to have pronounced or taken an ex-parte decision.

6. On the contrary, Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the order dated 30.08.2025 is a final decision of the customary court of Model Village, Naharlagun, rendered after hearing the parties in a complaint case. He further submitted th