JUDGMENT The suit (No. 31 of 1953) which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the respondent for dissolution of her marriage with the defendant under S. 2(ii) and (iv) of Act 8 of 1939 on the allegation that the defendant had eloped with the plaintiff and he lived with her in her fathers house for more than 3 days and then he kept her in the parental house where the customary ceremony of Loukhatpa was also performed, but she was not taken by the defendant to his house. The defendant was alleged to have refused to take her to his house and he totally neglected her for about four years, even though the plaintiff-respondent fell ill. The defendant also failed to perform, without, any reasonable cause, the marital obligations during 4 years preceding the institution of the suit and he also failed to provide maintenance for her. 2. The plaintiff had earlier filed petition No. 45 of 1952 for divorce in the Wangjing Panchayat but as the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to try such cases its decision dated 12-1-1953 as well as the appellate decision in civil appeal No. 11 of 1953 dated 7-3-1953 from the order of the Panchayat, were according to the plaintiff, without any jurisdiction, and so they were not binding on her. 3. The learned Sub-Judge, Manipur who tried the suit decreed it and so the defendant has come in appeal. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decision in, civil appeal No. 11 of 1953 dated 7-3-1953 was final between the parties and as the respondents petition for divorce was thereby dismissed, the present suit No. 45 of 1953 should have been held to be barred by S. 11 Civil P.C., as this suit was instituted on 21-4-1953 after the civil appeal No. 11 of 1953 had been allowed by the learned District Judge on 7-3-1953. 5. Section 11, Civil P.C. runs as follows : "11. 5. Section 11, Civil P.C. runs as follows : "11. No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court ..........." 6. It becomes clear from this Section that the former Court must be competent to try the subsequent suit. In the first place the Panchayat Court has jurisdiction to try money suit only under Manipur State Courts Act, 1947 and so the Panchayat Court had no jurisdiction to try a divorce suit. The petition filed before the Panchayat was not a regular plaint and so it cannot be said that the Panchayat really decided any divorce suit between the parties. Even if it did, its decision would be absolutely without any jurisdiction and hence a nullity. The present suit was valued at Rs. 1200/- and so this suit could not possibly be heard by the Panchayat, as such the decision of the Panchayat and subsequent appellate decision could not bar the present suit under S. 11, Civil P.C. The present suit was filed, as has already been mentioned above under sub-cls. (ii) and (iv) of S. 2 of Act 8 of 1939 on the grounds that the husband had neglected or had failed to provide the plaintiff with maintenance for a period of 2 years and that the defendant had failed to perform without any reasonable cause his marital obligation for a period of 3 years. The present suit was clearly within the cognizance of the Court of the Sub-Judge and if the Panchayat attempted to decide this matter between the parties the decision would obviously be without jurisdiction vide - Secy. of State v. Brajendra Kishore, AIR 1936 Cal 629 (A); - Mulji Sicka and Co. v. Dist. Council, Bhandara, AIR 1945 Nag 171 (B); and - Kalyan Das v. Sudershan Lal, AIR 1937 All 20 (C). I, therefore, hold that the suit was not barred by S.11, Civil P.C., and the learned Sub-Judge had jurisdiction to try it. 7. of State v. Brajendra Kishore, AIR 1936 Cal 629 (A); - Mulji Sicka and Co. v. Dist. Council, Bhandara, AIR 1945 Nag 171 (B); and - Kalyan Das v. Sudershan Lal, AIR 1937 All 20 (C). I, therefore, hold that the suit was not barred by S.11, Civil P.C., and the learned Sub-Judge had jurisdiction to try it. 7. The next question which requires examination is whether the defendant really succeeded in rebutting the plaintiffs allegation regarding neglect and failure of performance of marital obligations. The defendant-appellant got adjournment for producing his witnesses in the trial Court, but ultimately he did not examine any witness. The plaintiff, on the other hand examined Nawabali Mia, Hamidali Mia, Abdulei Mia and Habedali Mia and their evidence fully proves that the defendant failed to maintain the plaintiff respondent and he, without any good reason failed to discharge his marital duties for more than 4 years prior to the institution of this suit. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before me that his client worked under a misapprehension and so the case should be remanded to the trial Court. If the appellant had not got any adjournment in the trial Court for producing his witnesses, I would have believed this version; but as the appellant got adjournment for producing his witnesses and later on he could not produce any witness, I do not think it proper to give him an opportunity once again to produce got-up witnesses. In my opinion the suit was rightly decreed by the learned Sub-Judge and there is no force in this appeal. 9. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is dismissed with costs to the respondent. Appeal dismissed.