IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of jurisdiction based on the location of the suit property and the applicability of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 and Section 16 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner by way of this application under Clause 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Court) Order 2014, has put a challenge to the order dated 11.02.2022, passed in T.S. No. 53 of 2017 by the Presiding Officer, Sub-ordinate District Council Court, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Court, Shillong, whereby the Suit of the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed on the plea of lack of jurisdiction raised by the defendant/respondent.

2. The petitioner as plaintiff had filed a Suit being Title Suit No. 9 of 2015, thereafter re-numbered as T.S. No. 53 of 2017, praying for a decree for registration and transfer of the suit property as per the schedule described in Para-21 of the Plaint, located at Bhagyakul, Laitumkhrah under a lease issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong.

3. After institution of the Suit in 2015, and after written statements had been filed, the defendant (respondent herein) filed an application on August, 2019 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, praying for dismissal of the Suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter the Trail Court, by the order dated 11.02.2022 on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kyntiew Akor Suchiang v. Woston Hynniewta reported in (2017) 13 SCC 483 and of the Gauhati High Court in the State of Meghalaya v. Richard Lyngdoh reported in (2006) 2 GLR 328, dismissed the Suit for lack of jurisdiction. Being aggrieved as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way the instant revision application.

4. Ms. B. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case in hand is distinguishable from the cases that have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court, inasmuch as, the instant suit is with regard to suit property that is situated within the East Khasi Hills. She further submits that the objection with regard to jurisdiction was never taken up in the initial stage of the Suit. She further disputes the fact that the parties belong to Pnar community, the ground taken for questioning jurisdiction, and submits that even if the same was correct, there has been a considerable delay in filing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, added to the fact that the parties have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the District Council Court, Shillong. As such, she submits the order of the Trial Court is in error and warrants some interference by this Court.

5. Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. C.C.T Sangma, learned counsel for the respondents has firstly raised the question of maintainability of the instant revision in view of the availability of an appellate forum before the Judge, District Council Court. He submits that the matter can be taken up for appeal under Order 28 of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. He further submits that the power of this Court being pari materia to Section 115 CPC as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Acting Syiem of Hima Mylliem v. Bidington Kharir reported in (2020) I MJ 79, by application of Section 115 (2), the petitioner is bound to first approach the Court of the Judge, District Council Court. It is further submitted that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kyntiew Akor Suchiang v. Woston Hynniewta (supra) is binding under Article 141, and as such the revision by itself has no merits.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, firstly on the point of maintenance, the fact that the Suit has been instituted concerning and connected to property which is situated in East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya as described in the Plaint is undisputed. On perusal of the array of parties, it is also seen that the plaintiff appears to be a resident of East Khasi Hills where the property is situated. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Rule 47 of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 which provides for procedure