ORDER This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ in the nature of a certiorari, which in my judgment must be dismissed in limine, as it has no legs to stand upon. It relates to a claim, which is essentially of a civil nature, exclusively triable by civil courts. 2. The claim arose in this way : It is alleged by the petitioner, who is the Khullakpa (headman or Chief) of Huishu village in the Hill sub-division of Ukhrul that there is a custom (having the force of law) prevailing in his village, according to which, a male member from each family residing in his village, has to render him free service or labour (Khutlang) for a day once a year, or in lieu to pay Re. 1/- for the same. 3. There can be no doubt, that if such a customary right is proved, the Khullakpa would be entitled to a money decree for such service not rendered from a court of competent jurisdiction. 4. The present petitioner brought a suit for the same for two years, claiming Rs. 2/- from the opposite party No. 1, in 1950-51 and filed it in the court of the S. D. O., Ukhrul, who dismissed it by his order dated 30-10-52. We are not concerned for the purpose of this case with the reasons which impelled the S. D. O. to dismiss the claim. An appeal was then preferred to the D. C. in his capacity as Hill Bench, constituted by the order of the Chief Commissioner passed in 1951, and the Dy. Commissioner upset the judgment of the S. D. O. and gave the petitioner a decree for Rs. 2/- and costs. The Chief Commissioner was then moved, and purporting to act in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, he set aside the appellate order of the Dy. Commissioner, mainly on the ground, that the Dy. Commissioner was not competent to enforce such a civil liability. 5. The Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947, was in force during the relevant period, and according to its provisions, such a. claim was then triable by the court of Village Authority and no appeal lay from Appellant decision of the Village Authority, where the value of the suit did not exceed Rs. 35/- (see Secs. 40 and 42). 5. The Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947, was in force during the relevant period, and according to its provisions, such a. claim was then triable by the court of Village Authority and no appeal lay from Appellant decision of the Village Authority, where the value of the suit did not exceed Rs. 35/- (see Secs. 40 and 42). Section 50, however, gave revisional powers to the Hill Bench and the Chief Court, (to be read as Judicial) Commissioners Court after the passing of the Manipur State Courts (Amendment) Order, 1950), but restricted it only to the directing of a retrial. Thus the claim was not within the jurisdiction of the S. D. O., who is also nowhere designated as a Civil Court under Chapter IV-C of the said Regulation, and the mere fact that the claim was registered by him as a civil suit will not clothe him with the powers of a civil court. 6. The constitution of the Dy. Commissioner as the Hill Bench and the Chief Commissioner as the Chief Court for the purposes of the said Regulation vide. Chief Commissioners order No. J/18/51/23 dated 23-5-1951 was clearly beyond his powers and was also pronounced to be void, in a judgment of this court, reported in Konsam Amujao Singh v. Paejathang Haokip, AIR 1955 Manipur 30 , Again the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955, had come into force before the order of the C. C. was passed. Therefore all the three courts or authorities acted without jurisdiction in relation to the claim in question, and their orders were mere nullities under the law. 7. The petitioner wants that the Chief Commissioners order should be Quashed, as being without jurisdiction, for reasons stated in the last para, but surprisingly enough, he does not question the decision of the Dy. Commissioner though it suffers from the same infirmity and rather prays that it be declared as valid and binding, obviously because it goes in his favour. A party who seeks relief from the court, must come with clean hands and cannot be permitted to play hide and seek in this manner. If allowed it would be nothing short of permitting an abuse of the process of the court, indeed it would be permitting abuse of the jurisdiction and powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 8. A party who seeks relief from the court, must come with clean hands and cannot be permitted to play hide and seek in this manner. If allowed it would be nothing short of permitting an abuse of the process of the court, indeed it would be permitting abuse of the jurisdiction and powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 8. It is well-settled that a certiorari does not issue where the proceedings of the inferior tribunal are not merely voidable, but are absolutely null and void, for in such a case, no benefit will accrue from the issue of the writ. 9. When the orders are absolutely null and void, as in this case, it is open to the parties to ignore them, or to have them set aside by the decree of a competent court as and when occasion arises, and it is not proper to invoke the powers under Article 226, which are extra-ordinary and discretionary powers. 10. In the result, this petition for a writ is dismissed with costs without notice to the opposite parties. Petition dismissed.