By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 151 of the CPC petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 4.7.95 passed by Political Assistant to Deputy Commissioner. Zunheboto in Case No. 5/95, and the impugned order dated 9.9.96 passed by the learned Addl Deputy Commissioner (J) in Civil Appeal Case No.1 of 1995. 2. I have heard Mr. A. Zhimomi. learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. I. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and Mr. Kakheto. learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 3. The dispute involved in this writ petition is with regard to the land dispute between Zhekiye Village and Kiyekhu Village in the district of Zunheboto. The dispute has been settled as far back as on 13.7.1929 by JH Hutton the then Deputy Commissioner Naga Hills in Political Case No. 16/29 and affirmed by NL Bor, the then Deputy Commissioner. Haga Hills by an order dated 10.12.1935 in Political Case No.82/35. 4. The contentious issues canvased before the learned Addl Deputy Commissioner (J) Dimapur was that, since the disputing parties are same and the subject of the dispute was same, the therefore, the subsequent suit is barred by application of principle of res judicata. It appears, after hearing learned counsel of both sides at length, the learned ADC (J) has arri.ved at a conclusion as under: "In the light of the above observation before pronouncing judgment on the appeal, I would call for additional evidence if any to proof that the judgment order of JH Hutton existed and in its proper value and as to who is in possession of the suit land till atleast 1992 and also call the parties to submit translated copies of the evidence adduced in lower Court and any other issue the parties may further suggest." 5. From the concluding part as referred to above, two things deafly emerged; (a) That the existence of the judgment and order of JH Hutton passed on 13.7.1929 in Political Case No. 16/29 is doubted and calls for proof. (b) As to who is in possession of the suit land till 1992. 6. From the concluding part as referred to above, two things deafly emerged; (a) That the existence of the judgment and order of JH Hutton passed on 13.7.1929 in Political Case No. 16/29 is doubted and calls for proof. (b) As to who is in possession of the suit land till 1992. 6. Before I advert further on the other points urged by the learned counsel on all sides, I may at this stage observe that, in a catena of decisions, this Court has held that the Courts of Deputy Commissioners and Sub Divisional OfTicers-in the erst while Naga Hills District are competent civil. Court, and the judgment and order rendered by them are of civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 7. To clear all the doubts in our mind with regard to the existence of the order dated 13.7.1929 passed in Political Case No. 16/29 and the order dated 10.12.1935 passed in Political Case No.82/35, this Court on 3.6.97 requisitioned the original register containing the aforesaid two judgments and orders from trig record of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima. This Court also directed the learned counsel of both sides to assist the Deputy Commissioner in locating the Register. Accordingly, the original Register of political cases decided by the erstwhile Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills has been made available before this Court and the same has been perused. On perusal, the order of JH Hutton dated 13.7.-1929 passed in Political Case No. 16/29 is found at page 79/80 in the original Register. Also the order dated 10.12.1935 passed by NL Bor, in Political Case No.82/35 is found at page 356 of the Register containing the judgments and orders passed by various Deputy Commissioner in the erstwhile Naga Hills District. Therefore, there is no doubt that the order dated 13.7.1929 and the order dated 10.12.1935 are in existence. 8. It is however, contended by Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and Mr. Kakheto, learned counsel for the respondent 3 that the aforesaid orders cannot be held to be valid, because it has not been signed by the Deputy Commissioners themselves. I am unable to accept this contention for more than one reasons. Firstly, a perusal of the original-register produced at the time of hearing it appears that in almost all the judgments and orders it has riot been signed by the Deputy Commissioners themselves. I am unable to accept this contention for more than one reasons. Firstly, a perusal of the original-register produced at the time of hearing it appears that in almost all the judgments and orders it has riot been signed by the Deputy Commissioners themselves. However, it has been accepted as such and the validity of the order has been respected by all. The facts remains that the judgments and orders found in the Register which may be regarded as statute book, the same cannot be rejected as it was not signed by the Deputy Commissioner themselves which was the practised at that time. May be due to the overburden with the law and order problems, the orders of settling cases appears to have been dictated by the Deputy Commissioners of the erstwhile Naga Hills District and entered in the Register by his assistants kept for record. In 1929. the erstwhile Naga Hills District now comprises the State of Nagaland was unadministered and partially administered area, and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of the erstwhile Naga Hills District were primarily responsible for maintaining law and order. Very often, inter village rivalry resulting in head hunting erupted which calls for immediate solution so forth and so on. Secondly, the forum which was practised and adopted by the Courts in 1929 resolving the disputes at that particular time, the validity of which cannot be questioned now. The basic behind this principle being, if the dispute settled in 1929 is intereferred with for nonobservance of technical code, it would create more problems than solving it, and settled issues would become unsettle thereby creating chaos, and in some cases even resulted in breach of peace. In 1929. parties does not realise the value of land. Now they have realised that the land and its resources are valuable to them. May be many of the settled cases are reagitated again well an after thought. 9. Mr. Kakheto referred to the provision of section 35 and section 67 of the Evidence Act. Section 35 speaks of relevancy of entry in public record and says that if a public servant in the discharge to his official duty made an entry in the official register or record that fact was itself is a relevant fact. Section 67 deals with proof of signature and handwriting of person written on documents. Section 35 speaks of relevancy of entry in public record and says that if a public servant in the discharge to his official duty made an entry in the official register or record that fact was itself is a relevant fact. Section 67 deals with proof of signature and handwriting of person written on documents. I wonder how these two sections would be of any help to the respondent's case. The aforesaid two sections are itself irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the issue at hand. 10. Mr. A. Zhimomi strenously contended that, in view of the various decisions rendered by this Court it should be held by this Court that the subsequent suit is barred in applying the principle of doctrine of res judicata. No doubt that in a catena of decisions, this Court conclusively held that the principle of res judicata which has unversally application would be applied in the cases decided governed by the rules. This Court also held that the Courts of Deputy Commissioners and Sub Divisional Officers of erstwhile Naga Hills are civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the principle of res judicata would be attracted. However. I am not inclined to enter into this argument, because the learned Court below is yet to arrive whether the present proceeding is hit by the doctrine of res judicata or not. Because the learned Court below was doubting the existence of the order dated 13.7.1929 passed by JH Hutton, the then Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills District, and the order dated 10.12.1935 passed by NL Bor, the then Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills District in Political Case No. 82/35.1 may mentioned here that, what otherwise is called a civil suit now, was being treated as political cases in those days by several Deputy Commissioners of Naga Hills District. May be because the people are politically sensitive and therefore, all the decisions are being treated as political decisions. 11. Having said enough. I now remit this case to the learned Addl Deputy Commissioner (J) Dimapur to decide as to whether the present proceeding is hit by the principle of res judicata, accepting the order dated 13.7.1929 passed by the JH Hutton, the then Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills District in Political Case No. 16/29 and affirmed by NL Bor, the then Deputy Commissioner. Naga Hills District by its order dated 10.12.1935 passed in Political Case No.82/35 is valid and in existence. Naga Hills District by its order dated 10.12.1935 passed in Political Case No.82/35 is valid and in existence. Consequently, the order dated 9.9.96 passed by learned ADC (J) Dimpur as quoted above is hereby set aside. 12. Since it has been held that the orders aforesaid have been validly made and in existence, the learned Court below need not go to the second question as who is in possession of the land upto 1992. 13. Parties are litigating since 19^9, the learned Court below is directed to dispose of the appeal within a month from the date of receipt of this order and the records. Registry is directed to sent back the lower Court records to the learned Addl Deputy Commissioner (J) Dimapur forthwith. Registry is also directed to sent back the two original Registers containing the judgments to the record of Deputy Commissioner, Kohimaby special messanger with a covering letter. Since the Registers are old, it should be handled with care and caution.