This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 4.9.91 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Zunbeboto in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1980. 2. This case has a chequered history dates back to 1948 where a party to the present dispute entered into an agreement for sale of plot of land measuring 200 x 100 at Suruhuto Town for a consideration of Rs. 30/-. The town was then very small, by now the said town has developed by leaps and bounds and has become a big town and the lands are now quite valuable and the price of the land are also quite high. Subsequent to 1948 agreement, there was yet another agreement between the present appellant Shri Nguzukhe and Khozulho to the effect that the appellant would give another, plot of land adjacent to the plot already sold to the respondents party herein on the condition that respondent would give a gun to the appellant and the appellant in return would part a plot of land, a live Mithun leg, a shawl and Rs. 75/- in cash. After the transaction, the respondent party delivered the gun to the petitioner and the petitioner also delivered the possession of the plot of land to the respondents parties. Subsequently it was discovered that the gun was without licence and the parties mutually agreed to repudiate the subsequent sale by returning the gun to the respondents parties and the respondents parties would return a live Mithun leg, a shawl and Rs. 75/- in cash. It was disputed between, the parties about the return of Rs. 75/-. A dispute was then raised before the Court of Circle Officer, Suruhuto who after examining the dispute involved, endorsed the case to DBs Court for disposal in accordance with Sema Customary law. The learned DBs Court fixed on 13.11.79 for taking of customary oath. On the date fixed he learned members of Dubashis and the parties to the dispute arrived at the disputed site as ordered. 3. The disputing parties, namely: Nguzukhe and Khozulho pleaded to the Dubashis that since the parties to the dispute are brothers they do not want to settle the case by taking oath arid have decided to mutually agreed to divide the land in dispute equally between them. 3. The disputing parties, namely: Nguzukhe and Khozulho pleaded to the Dubashis that since the parties to the dispute are brothers they do not want to settle the case by taking oath arid have decided to mutually agreed to divide the land in dispute equally between them. On this mutual agreement to settle the dispute by dividing the land equally, the learned Dubashis Court at Suruhuto divided the land between the parties as under:- "From water tank up to 30 ft of the land has been kept by both of them. From this point onwards the site belongs to Shri Nguzukhe. Then from the place of Kikhezhe teacher up to the house of Khatovi shall be the site for Khozulho. And the boundary in between them has been demarcated from the site of Izhcto's boundary upto the (tin) point of retaining wall of Kikhezhe towards the uncut portion of Nguzukhe's site straight on to the middle door point of Khukhevi's house as the boundary. Nguzukhe's portion shall be from the uncut hillock straight on to the water pond below road. Next from Kikhezhe's house up to the house of Khatovk shall be Khozulho's portion. The land was divided equally by both of them using the measuring tape. This settlement was done by Shri Khozulho and Shri Nguzukhe on mutual agreement in the presence of D. Bs. Therefore, it is declared as an ORDER that in future whoever creates problem in this case, a fine of Rs. 500/- shall be imposed against the defaulter. Consequently the map of the divided land has been drawn by the Govt. and kept in the court. Further, the names of all persons present on the spot of settlement has been signed individually in the Order as witness. Witness: - Sd/ 1. Shri Khehovi, Chairman Area Council. 2. Shri Tokishe 3. Shri Nihevi 4. Shri Vikiho 5. Shri Kikhezhe 6. Shri Yetovi D Bs. Sd/- 1. Shri Hozukhu, DB 2. „ Nivishe, DB Dated Suruhuto the 13th Nov' 79." 4. It appears that during the intervening period, one Shri Yetomo Sema purchased a plot from Khozulho Sema which was purchased by Khozulho in 1948. 2. Shri Tokishe 3. Shri Nihevi 4. Shri Vikiho 5. Shri Kikhezhe 6. Shri Yetovi D Bs. Sd/- 1. Shri Hozukhu, DB 2. „ Nivishe, DB Dated Suruhuto the 13th Nov' 79." 4. It appears that during the intervening period, one Shri Yetomo Sema purchased a plot from Khozulho Sema which was purchased by Khozulho in 1948. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the DBs Court to divide the land equally between Nguzukhe and Khozulho, Shri Yetomo filed a complaint against Khozulho before Circle Officer, Suruhuto, on the ground that the tend purchased fey the complainant namely; Shri Yetomo from Shri Khozulho was devided without the consent of the complainant. The said complaint was again endorsed to learned DBs Court for disposal in accordance with the Sema Customary law. 5. The learned DBs heard the parties on 22.1.80 and re-affirmed the agreed decree pasted on 13.11.79. In the said order it was further observed that the complainant Shri Yetomo was present before the learned Circle Officer, Suruhuto when the case was taken up for hearing. And again when the house site was divided between Nguzukhe and Khozulho on 13.11.79 Shri Kikhezhe S/o Yetomo was present on the spot and submitted that he has already develo­ped the house site and constructed a house over the plot of land purchased by Khozulho and as per his statement and submission, while dividing the land between Nguzukhe and Khozulho the share of Khozulho was given on the side of which Yetomo claimed to have purchased and his son Kikhezhe had constructed his house. In the said judgment and order, the learned DBs imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- on Khozulho to be given to Yetomo. It was further ordered Khozulho to pay the cost of land amounting to Rs. 215/- to Yetomo. 6. Against the aforesaid decision, Khozulho preferred an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto who after perusal of the appeal petition endorsed the same to DBs Court at Zunheboto for disposal. Here lies the error. From the appeal petition, it is clear that the only respondent was Shri Yetomo Sema. However, it appears the learned DBs Court after hearing the parties re-examined the entire issue which was not agitated before the Court and passed an order inter-alia affecting Nguzukhe's rights who was not at all before the Court and who was not heard. From the appeal petition, it is clear that the only respondent was Shri Yetomo Sema. However, it appears the learned DBs Court after hearing the parties re-examined the entire issue which was not agitated before the Court and passed an order inter-alia affecting Nguzukhe's rights who was not at all before the Court and who was not heard. The learned Dubashis Court also wrongly set aside the order and judgment passed by the learned DBs Court at Suruhuto on 13.11.79 and 22.1.80. Being aggrieved Shri Nguzukhe preferred an appeal before the learned Court of Extra Assistant Commissioner, Suruhuto, which was registered as the Appeal Case No. 4 of 1986 and after hearing the parties rendered its judgment and order dated 29.7.86 thereby affirming judgment and order dated 13.11.79 and order dated 22.1.80 of the DBs Court, Suruhuto. The learned EAC Suruhuto further observed that one DBs Court do not have the power to set aside the judgment passed by another DBs Court. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.7.86 the present respondent Shri Yetomo filed an appeal before the learned Deputy Commiss­ioner, Zunheboto who endorsed the appeal petition to learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Zunheboto for disposal. The learned ADC (J) after hearing the parties set aside the order passed by the learned EAC Suruhuto, hence the present petition. 8. I have heard Mr. Iralu, learned counsel for the revisionist and also Mr. I. Jamir learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Iralu submits that since the parties to the dispute have mutually agreed to settle the dispute amicably by dividing the land in dispute equally and the same have been allowed by the DBs Court at Suruhuto on 13.11.79 and 22.1.80, the same ought to have been accepted as, a valid decree. It is further submitted that learned DBs Court at Zunbeboto has no jurisdiction to sit over the judgment and order passed by the DBs Court at Suruhuto inasmuch as they are having concurrent jurisdiction under the law. Even assuming that they have jurisdiction the judgment and order passed by the DBs Court is illegal and liable to be set in as much as the present petitioner was not a party before the Court. These are the few points which has come up before this Court for consideration. 9. Even assuming that they have jurisdiction the judgment and order passed by the DBs Court is illegal and liable to be set in as much as the present petitioner was not a party before the Court. These are the few points which has come up before this Court for consideration. 9. As far as the first points raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that when a party decides to settle the dispute amicably the Court should always be happy to accept it. More so, in the present case, the mode of decision to be adopted by the learned DBs Court was to administered customary oath to the disputing parties. Having realised the consequences that would follow in the event of taking customary oath, the parties which were treated as brothers pleaded before the trial Court that they would settle the dispute amicably and would divide the land mutually instead of taking customary oath. This in my view was fair approach by the parties and rightly accepted by the trial Court. Any further indulgence should have been desisted. 10. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one DBs Court do not have any jurisdiction to set aside another DBs Court is well founded in law and therefore must prevail. 11. Rule 31 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice in Naga Hills District, 1937 provides that an appeal shall lie from the decision of the Mauzadar, Gaonbura, Chief, Headmen of a Khel or others duly recognised authorities (to the tribal Court whenever constituted or otherwise) to the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistant It is noticed that no mention of DBs Court is found under Rule 31, however, by (Nagaland Act No. 4 of 1983) the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Naga Hills District was further amended and by this amendment the word Dubashis has been inserted after the word "Headmen of a Khel." 12. A cursory reading of Rule 31 of the Rules as amended by the Second Amendment Act (Nagaland Act No. 4 1983) it clearly posits that an appeal from the decisions of DBs and other authorities mentioned under Rule 31 lies to the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistants. The DBs are not Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner under the Rules. A cursory reading of Rule 31 of the Rules as amended by the Second Amendment Act (Nagaland Act No. 4 1983) it clearly posits that an appeal from the decisions of DBs and other authorities mentioned under Rule 31 lies to the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistants. The DBs are not Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner under the Rules. Therefore, our DBs Court have no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and order passed by another DBs Court. 13. Same is the error committed by the learned ADC (J), Zunheboto, where he stated that the appeal was from Subordinate Customary Court to District Customary Court which has appellate jurisdiction over subordinate Court. This view, in my opinion, a wrong reading of the Rules. There is no Court for the time being recognised by the law as Subordinate Customary Court or District Customary Court. In this view of the matter, the order dated 4.9.91 passed by the learned ADC (J) is liable to be set aside, which I hereby do. As said earlier, the present dispute arose from the agreement entered into between the parties as fas back as in 1948. It is unfortunate that litigation has been dragging till today. 14. In view of what has been stated above the order dated 4.9.91 passed by the learned ADC (J) in Civil Appeal Case No. 1 of 1980 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 13.11.79 and 22.1.80 passed by the DBs Court at Suruhuto and order dated 29.7.86 passed by the learned EAC Suruhuto affirming the decision of DBs Court at Suruhuto are restored. With the above direction and observation the revision petition is r Mowed. No order as to costs.