IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the competence of the Judge, District Council Court to exercise original jurisdiction in the trial of a Title Suit as provided by the Rules of 1953, and the court's authority to direct the endorsement of the matter to another court based on the availability of judges.

JUDGMENT

1. The issue that has been raised before this Court is with regard the power of the Judge, District Council Court to exercise original jurisdiction in the trial of a Title Suit, which has been brought before the District Council Court for adjudication. It appears that an original suit being Title Suit No. 1 of 2018, along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2018 had been filed before the District Council Court, and the Judge, District Council Court by exercising powers of original jurisdiction had taken up the same and an exparte ad-interim injunction order dated 08.02.2018 was passed, restraining the petitioner/defendant from entering the suit land.

2. As the Judge had exercised powers of original jurisdiction, the petitioner by way of a petition had questioned the jurisdiction of the Judge, District Council Court in entertaining the Suit. The Judge, District Council Court then by the impugned order dated 22.08.2019, dismissed the said petition by holding that Rule 30 and 32 of The United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1953) provides for such eventualities, whereby the court of the Judge District Council Court is competent to try a civil suit by itself.

3. The grievance of the petitioner which has however, remained is that the Judge District Council Court, in exercising such power should assign reasons as to why the said civil suit has been taken to be tried by itself, and not endorsed to any other Subordinate District Council Court. It is submitted by the petitioner that though the reason given in the impugned order is that the Presiding Officer of the Subordinate District Council Court is overburdened, the exercise of this jurisdiction is totally without any reason or basis, as it was not as per the scope and ambit of the Rules of 1953. The learned Senior counsel submits that Rule 32 (a) and (b) speaks of the situation when the Judge District Council Court, may try a Title Suit, and that is, only if it appears, that a fair and impartial inquiry is not possible by any Village Court or Subordinate District Council Court, or that some question of law, tribal or otherwise of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, which the learned Senior counsel contends is not the case in the instant matter.

4. Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. G. Kynta, learned counsel for the respondent though had initially challenged the maintainability of the revision application on several grounds, such as non-joinder of necessary parties and that the same has been filed with an oblique intention, without giving the Judge the opportunity to defend himself, has also made submissions on the question of law surrounding this particular issue, and submits that by the operation of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1953, the Subordinate District Council Court is competent to try civil suits not triable by a Village Court, but that the same is subject to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1953. He further submits Rule 19 provides that the Additional Subordinate District Council Court is competent to try all civil suits not triable by a Village Court in which all the parties reside or hold land within its jurisdiction. He submits that in view of the position of law, the Subordinate District Council Court by the operation of Rule 18, will also be precluded from taking up this matter. He however, concedes that he has no objection if the suit is remanded back and endorsed afresh to any other Subordinate District Council Court, as in the impugned order it is clearly mentioned that the only difficulty is the non-availability of Subordinate District Council Court, Judge.

5. Having heard the learned Senior counsels for the parties and considering the circumstances and situation at it pertains today, especially the fact that there are other Subordinate District Council Court Judges available to take up the matt