JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. This revision petition filed under Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (Third Amendment) Act, 1984 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.9.2005 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (J) Nagaland, Dimapur in Civil Appeal No. 4/2000 enhancing the decretal amount from Rs.91,500/- with 15% interest and Rs.10,821.60 being cost of court fee etc awarded by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in Civil Suit No. 20/92 in favour of the opposite party/plaintiff to Rs.6,50,000/-. 2. The present respondent is the plaintiff in the Civil Suit No. 20/92. He owns a Saw Mill in the name and style of M/s Dimapur Saw Mill situated at Circular Road, Dimapur. 3. The petitioner is the Defendant /Insurance company in the said suit. The case of the petitioner is that it issued a Fire Policy from its Dimapur office in favour of respondent for the period from 22.7.1988 to 21.7.1989, covering fire risk in respect of plant and machineries, accessories for Rs.2,50,000/-, for stock another sum of Rs.2,50,000/- giving total coverage of Rs. 5 lacs only on the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. To that effect the respondent /plaintiff paid the prescribed premium of Rs.500/- for the said policy. The Dimapur Branch of the petitioner-company received a communication dated 16.6.1989 from the respondent/plaintiff intimating about the fire incident of 10.6.1989 and in the said incident he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.91,500/- under the following heads: 1) 3 thatched houses - Rs.76,000.00 2) Labour articles - Rs.10,000.00 3) Iron sheets - Rs. 5,000.00 4. The petitioner/ defendant company scrutinized the claim of the respondent for damage and vide letter dated 12.11.90, it informed the respondent that the claim would not be payable as the policy did not cover the aforesaid damages. Being aggrieved, the opposite party filed the aforesaid civil suit before the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. 5. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that on 16.6.89, a devastating fire broke out in his aforesaid Mill and gutted the round and swan timbers, plant and machineries including sheds etc in the said Saw Mill premises. He intimated the petitioner/defendant-insurance company about the incident of fire and the resultant loss. 5. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that on 16.6.89, a devastating fire broke out in his aforesaid Mill and gutted the round and swan timbers, plant and machineries including sheds etc in the said Saw Mill premises. He intimated the petitioner/defendant-insurance company about the incident of fire and the resultant loss. The respondent filed claim petition with original insurance policy and all other relevant documents relating to the said fire incident and the loss caused to him for settlement of the insurance claimed. The respondent as well as his banker SBI, Dimapur Branch, repeatedly requested the petitioner-defendant for settlement of the claim, but, due to non settlement of the claim by the petitioner/defendant, the business of the respondent got totally collapsed. The respondent filed a complaint in the West Dimapur Police Station regarding the fire incident. Finally the respondent filed the above suit claiming final compensation under different heads: i. Loss of stock machineries etc - Rs.48,80,000/- ii. Bank interest on loss w.e.f. Rs.40,00,000/- iii. Other loss Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs.10,80,000.00 6. The learned trial court framed as many as 16 issues for disposal of the suit. However, amongst them, according to the defendant /petitioner the most relevant issues are issue Nos. 7,8,9,10 and 16. For ready reference the said issues are quoted below: 7. Whether the plaintiff suffered loss of Rs.4,80,000/- due to devastating fire on 10.06.1989? 8. Whether the claim lodged by the plaintiff to the defendant- insurance company was Rs.4,80,000.00 or Rs.91,500/- on 12.6.1989 ? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any compensation in addition to the actual losses sustained ? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.10,80,000/- as claim in the suit including bank interest on loan and other loses /damages ? 16. Whether the property destroyed by fire are covered by the fire policy and if not whether the plaintiff is entitled to any benefit under the policy.? 7. The plaintiff examined 4 witnesses and the defendant examined only one witness. The suit was decreed on contest. The defendant preferred an appeal namely Civil Appeal No. 4/2000 before the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur and by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.9.2005, the appeal was disposed of enhancing the decretal amount as stated earlier. The present petitioner being further dis-satisfied with and aggrieved by the appellate order has filed the present revision petition for setting aside the impugned judgment & order. 8. The present petitioner being further dis-satisfied with and aggrieved by the appellate order has filed the present revision petition for setting aside the impugned judgment & order. 8. The suit was decreed ex parte on 19.2.97 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Subsequently, on application made by the petitioner-defendant, the said ex-parte decree was set aside on 16.1.1998 and remanded back the civil suit to the learned trial court. On remand, the petitioner as defendant, filed written statements. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents raising the following preliminary objections : (a) The Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner before this Hon'ble Court against the judgment and order dated 21/09/2006 passed by Shri L K Ahumi, learned Deputy Commissioner (J), Dimapur, Nagaland, arising out of Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2000 under Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (Third Amendment) Act, 1984, read with Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The provisions of Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland is not applicable in the instant case. The Act is applicable only when a dispute arises between the tribals of Nagaland in connections with involving their customary laws. In a dispute between a claimant and an insurance company, the provisions of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland cannot be involved and, as such, a Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner under Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (Third Amendment) Act, 1984, is not maintainable. The Petition is liable to be dismissed for it not being maintainable. (b) The original Civil Suit filed by the instant opposite party was never filed under the provisions of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937. The suit was filed only under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and, as such, at the appeal stage also only the provisions of the C.P.C. would be applicable. (c) The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Appellant under Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, read with Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The Deponent respectfully submits that no Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a decree passed by the Appellate Court. (c) The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Appellant under Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, read with Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The Deponent respectfully submits that no Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a decree passed by the Appellate Court. The scope of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and does not extend to the power to challenge a decree passed by a competent court. (d) The findings of facts arrived at by the Appellate Court is final and the same could CRP 15 (k)/06 not be challenged under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India or Rule 32 of the Act. This Hon'ble (sic) is not conferred with the jurisdiction for re-appreciation of the evidence whose findings had attained finality after the decree passed by the appellate court. 9. Mr.P.Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid preliminary objections are to be considered and answered first before going into the merit of the case. 10. In answer to the aforesaid preliminary objections, first of all it is submitted by Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant petition filed under Section 32 of the Rule of the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, is not maintainable inasmuch as the said Rule is applicable only in those cases where both the parties are local inhabitants of the State of Nagaland. Secondly, the instant petition cannot also be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as this court cannot interfere with a decree under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As regards the first objection, opposite party respondent has no right to raise such objection when the respondent himself has approached the learned Deputy Commissioner(Judicial) Nagland, Dimapur by way of filing civil appeal No. 4/2000 under Rule 29 of the said Rules. Even otherwise, the contention of the respondent is that the provision of the Rules are applicable only when the parties are local, is absolutely baseless and without any substance. Mr. Even otherwise, the contention of the respondent is that the provision of the Rules are applicable only when the parties are local, is absolutely baseless and without any substance. Mr. Jamir, learned senior counsel submits that nowhere in the said Rule it is provided that the provisions of Rules shall be applicable only when the parties to the suit are local and as such if the contentions of the respondents to the effect that the provisions of the Rules are applicable only when the parties are local is accepted, it will amount to importing something which is not provided under the Rules and which was never contemplated at the time of legislating the said rules. Secondly he submits that the High Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has ample power to interfere with the judgment and order passed by subordinate court, if the finding arrived at by it is perverse and without any material on record and thereby resulted in manifest injustice. In this regard, he refers to the case of Essen Deinki vs. Rajiv Kumar, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 400 . He also submits that this power of superintendence, being part of the basic structure of the constitution, it cannot be taken away even by a constitutional amendment as held in Surya Dev Vs. Ram Chander Rai & ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 . In the said judgment it is held that even the amendment to section 115 of the CPC, 1908 would not affect in any manner the power of the High Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That being the legal position, there is no merit or substance in the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party and the same are liable to be rejected. 11. The first preliminary objection is most pertinent and it is first of all necessary to find out from the provisions under the 1984 Act, as to whether for the purpose of filing suit u/s 24(1), the parties must belong to scheduled tribes or tribes and so also for filing an appeal under Rule 29(1), before the Deputy Commissioner, and a petition under Rule 32 before the High Court or the Deputy Commissioner. Chapter-IV A has been incorporated in 1984 Act providing for constitution of customary courts. Chapter-IV A has been incorporated in 1984 Act providing for constitution of customary courts. Rule 39 thereunder speaks about three classes of customary courts, namely (i) village courts, (ii) subordinate district customary courts (iii) district courts for trial of suit and cases between the parties all of whom belong to scheduled tribe or tribes with powers and jurisdiction. Procedures have been prescribed thereunder with powers and functions of the said customary courts. The litigants from the scheduled tribes or tribe or tribes are required to submit before the customary courts for filing the suits and cases before the village courts and preferring appeal before the higher customary courts. The customary courts has been defined to mean and include village courts, subordinate district customary courts and district customary courts. The scheduled tribes or tribe, as per Rule 2(h) mean such tribe or tribes as are specified by the order or orders made by the President of India and as may be modified by law made by parliament from time to time. In so far as it relates to the State of Nagaland, the non-tribal parties who belong to general community are free to file suit /case before the civil courts. Financial and territorial jurisdiction are specified under the Rules from time to time. Chapter -IV of the 19894 Act pertains to civil justice. Under Rule 23 of the said Act the administration of justice of civil justice in the State of Nagaland is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, customary courts constituted under Chapter IVA of the Rules, Dobashis and other village authorities as may be pointed by the State Govt. from time to time in the official gazette. The said Rules provide that the Govt. of Nagaland is empowered to invest any officer of the State Govt. having judicial experience with the power of the Deputy Commissioner for the trial of any particular civil case or cases and the officer so invested with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner shall be designated as Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) and shall exercise all the powers of the Deputy Commissioner in this behalf. Rule 24(1) provides that every civil suit or action under chapter IV shall be presented in court by filing a plaint containing the required particulars including the relief claimed by the plaintiff. Rule 24(1) provides that every civil suit or action under chapter IV shall be presented in court by filing a plaint containing the required particulars including the relief claimed by the plaintiff. There is another provision under Rule 26 providing that the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistant, shall, in all cases in which parties are indigenous inhabitants of the hills, endeavour to induce them to submit their case to a Panchayat and if they agree to it, each party shall name an equal number of arbitrators, and shall choose or leave the arbitrator to choose an umpire. When the case has been decided under the Panchayat, the umpire shall empower with the parties before the court, which shall proceed the record the decision and enforce it as its own. This provision is in consonance with the provision under Chapter -IV A, of the Rules. Rule 29(1) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner against the decision of any of his Assistant and to the High Court against the original decision of the Deputy Commissioner, if the value of the suit is Rs.500/- or more, or of right to or possession of immovable property. Further under Rule 32 it is provided that the High Court or the Deputy Commissioner may, on application made by the aggrieved party or otherwise call for the proceedings of any case decided by any officer subordinate to him and pass such order as may be deemed fit. But as per proviso to the said Rule, the aggrieved party can file application only after availing of remedy by way of appeal, if any, provided under Rules against such decision. 12. There is no dispute that the parties to the present civil proceeding are non-tribals. The suit was filed by the respondents before the court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner which was registered as civil suit being civil suit No. 20/92. The suit was decreed but it was not to satisfaction of the Respondents/plaintiff and as such he filed the civil appeal u/s 96 CPC read with Section 29of the 1984 Rules. The Civil Suit as well as Civil Appeal No. 4/2000 filed by the respondent/plaintiff are regular civil proceedings under the CPC. The parties submitted before regular trial and appellate civil courts and the said suit and appeals were decided accordingly. The Civil Suit as well as Civil Appeal No. 4/2000 filed by the respondent/plaintiff are regular civil proceedings under the CPC. The parties submitted before regular trial and appellate civil courts and the said suit and appeals were decided accordingly. It is, therefore, an admitted position that the parties to the proceeding being non-tribal, there was no scope for them to submit before the customary courts constituted under Chapter IV A of the Rules. The suit before the trial court namely Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner having come to a conclusion under the procedure prescribed in the CPC, in a normal course, the parties aggrieved by the judgment or order of the lower appellate court or first appellate court, is required to approach the High Court by way of Second Appeal u/s 100 CPC but in the present case, the appellant /defendant has filed a revision petition under Rule 32 of the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (Third Amendment) Act and Administration of Justice read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The maintainability of such revision petition has been challenged. The provision of filing suit/appeal etc under 1984 Act, having been discussed, it is felt necessary to have a look at the background of framing the original Rule namely Rules of Administration of Justice & Police in Nagaland, 1937 Rules (hereinafter referred to as 1937 Rules only). 13. If one goes by the historical background, he would find that during the period of British Rule Britishers were fully aware about the attachment and sentiment towards the customary laws and practices prevalent in different parts of the country including the North-Eastern States. The Britishers preferred not to interfere with the customary rights and practices of the different tribal communities and had advocated their perseverance which would have a soothing affect on the tribal people. The Britishers encouraged development of various customary institutions by allowing the local people to administer the same. The Britishers were very clever in the sense that the control of these customary institutions and their adjudicative functions were given to the Deputy Commissioner of the District or to any of his Assistants to foresee and control the verdicts given by such customary institutions. The Govt. of India Act, 1919 and the Govt. The Britishers were very clever in the sense that the control of these customary institutions and their adjudicative functions were given to the Deputy Commissioner of the District or to any of his Assistants to foresee and control the verdicts given by such customary institutions. The Govt. of India Act, 1919 and the Govt. of India Act, 1935 took utmost care for the said issue giving independence to the customary institutions on the one hand and controlling them in the sphere of adjudication and administration by their officers who are in-charge of the districts. 14. So far as the State of Nagaland is concerned it has a chequered history of development of laws governing the State. The 1937 Rules were enacted by virtue of Sec. 6 of the Scheduled District Act,1874 for the Naga Hills District. The 1937 Rules led to establishment of customary institutions such as Gaon Bura, Village Councils, Khel Leaders, Dobasis, etc. which were adjudicating criminal and civil disputes of petty nature. These institutions were brought under the administrative control by vesting the powers to the Deputy Commissioner of the District or to the Assistants to the Deputy Commissioner of the District. From any decision of these customary institutions, the Appeal provided under the 1937 Rules lie with the Deputy Commissioner of the District. By creating such a machinery, it is ultimately the Britishers who control the administration of these areas even in adjudicative matters. The 1937 Rules were brought with a sole objective to exercise control over a customary institutions that were in existence in the Naga Hills District. In the Constitutional Assembly Debates, extensive care and caution were taken not to hurt the sentiments of the innocent tribal peoples living in the backward areas of the country. This was done with the sole object not to interfere with the customs and practices of the tribal people and also to protect them from any form of exploitations. The Constitution of India had enacted the Fifth Schedule and the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India for the purpose of special protection of the tribal people. The Sixth Schedule is for governing the rights and self administration of the tribal people living in the North-Eastern States. 15. The Nine Point Hydari Agreement between the Naga National Council and the Govt. The Sixth Schedule is for governing the rights and self administration of the tribal people living in the North-Eastern States. 15. The Nine Point Hydari Agreement between the Naga National Council and the Govt. of India had incorporated in clause 1 that there is an Agreement to preserve the Naga Customary Laws and Customary Institutions. Subsequently, the Sixteen Point Agreement were executed between the leaders of Naga National Council and the Govt. of India. In clause 7(3) of the Sixteen Point Agreement, it was agreed to make the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Naga Hills District operative in the State of Nagaland in the matters relating to Naga Customary Laws. The 1937 Rules are meant basically to exercise control over the Tribal Court which deals with the customary laws of the tribal people. The 1937 Rules contemplate to exclude persons who are not the native of Naga Hills District, non Tribal resident of the State including Banking Institution and Insurance Companies. After the State of Nagaland was created in 1963, it was taken out of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India and by Constitution (13th Amendment) Act, 1962, Article 371A was incorporated in the Constitution of India. A perusal of various Rules in the 1937 Rules in respect of the administration of civil and criminal justices, would clearly show that these Rules were meant for various Naga tribes in the State. This fact is further supported by provisions under Article 371-A of the Constitution of India which deals with (i) Religious and Social practices of the Nagas, (ii) customary law and procedure and (iii) administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law. 16. In the above background, Rule 35 of the 1937 Rules and Rule 34 of the 1984 Act have provided that the proceeding before the tribal courts/customary courts would be guided by the spirit of CPC and they would not be bound by the letters of the CPC in technical sense. For the same reason Section 1(3)(a)(b) of the CPC, 1908 has also provided that the CPC shall be extended to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the State of Nagaland and tribal areas. For the purpose of this case Section 1(a)(b) is relevant. For the same reason Section 1(3)(a)(b) of the CPC, 1908 has also provided that the CPC shall be extended to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the State of Nagaland and tribal areas. For the purpose of this case Section 1(a)(b) is relevant. The proviso and the explanation appended to the aforesaid Section make it clear that provision of the CPC would be applicable in a case where it does not invoke any customary law involving the Naga tribes. For the same reason in the original Rules of 1937, which is deleted under 1984 Act, provides that the High Court and the Courts of the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistants shall be guided by the spirit and not bound by the letter of the CPC. 17. From the aforesaid discussion, it is abundantly found clear that the area of operation of provision of 1937 Rules or 1984 Act and the provision under the CPC are clearly demarcated in respect of their applicability in the State of Nagaland. There is no such authoritative judicial pronouncement defining the scope and jurisdiction of the 1937 Rules, 1984 Act and the CPC of 1908. But under the scheme of the 1937 Rules and 1984 Act separate procedures for the cases where the parties are non-tribals have been provided under Chapter-IV. In the cases where the parties are tribals /tribes of Nagaland they shall be dealt with under Chapter IV A of the 1984 Act. The parties in the present case being non tribals are undoubtedly to be dealt with under Chapter -IV. It is admittedly evident that the parties in the present case persuaded the suit/case under Chapter -IV of the said Act. There is no denial of the fact that although the first appeal was stated to have been filed u/s 96 CPC read with Section 29 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (3rd Amendment Act) 1984, it was indeed a regular first appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) against the judgment and decree dated 5.12.98 passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. There is, therefore, no escape for the present petitioner from preferring a Second Appeal u/s 100 of the CPC against the judgment and order of the Lower Appellate Court. There is, therefore, no escape for the present petitioner from preferring a Second Appeal u/s 100 of the CPC against the judgment and order of the Lower Appellate Court. A Division Bench of this court in Sri Medenkaba and another vs. R.Tekatemjen Ao & another reported in (1987) 1 GLR 156 had an occasion to discuss on the applicability of Rule 34 of the 1937 Rules relating to de novo trial. It was held therein that in absence of any specific provision in the Rules it would not be permissible to lay down that where appeal lay revision will not lie. Both the remedies are provided in the Rules. The aforesaid Rule 34 is reproduced hereunder: 34. The High Court or Deputy Commissioner may, on application or otherwise, call for the proceedings of any case decided by any officer subordinate to him and pass such order as he may deem fit. An appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner against the decision of any of his Assistants (and of any tribal Court) and to the High Court against an original decision of the Deputy Commissioner, if the value of the suit be Rs.500 or over, or if the suit involves a question of tribal rights or customs, or of right, or possession of immovable property; Provided that the petition of appeal accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and by a clear statement of the grounds of appeal be filed within 30 days from the date of decision excluding the time required for obtaining a copy of the decision. An appeal which lies to the High Court may be presented to the Deputy Commissioner, who shall, if it be in order and presented in due time endorse upon it the date of receipt and transmit it with the records of the case of the High Court. The decree of the appellate court shall be transferred to the Court passing the original order for execution as a decree of its own. 18. The learned Division Bench held that if the party had already appealed under Rule 34 the remedy by way of revision under the first part of the Rule to the High Court will still be available. On the other hand, if the party directly approached the High Court either in appeal or revision under the Rule, no further remedy will be available in the High Court. On the other hand, if the party directly approached the High Court either in appeal or revision under the Rule, no further remedy will be available in the High Court. The said judgment was delivered on 30.4.1986. The 1984 Act has amended many provisions of 1937 Rules. Rule 34 of the original Rule 1937 Rules has been deleted in the 3rd Amendment Act i.e. 1984 Act. After such deletion, the provision under Rule 34 of 1937 Rules cannot be enforced in the present case. In my considered view, the judicial pronouncement in the Medenkaba (supra) has no more application to the present case. The parties in the present case being non-tribals, there is no scope for the party aggrieved by the judgment & order of the first appellate court i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) for preferring a revision petition before the High Court. The only remedy is by way of filing Second Appeal as provided u/s 100 of the CPC. The revision against the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court, particularly with the deletion of provision under Rule 34 of the 1937 Rules, is not provided or contemplated under the existing 1984 Act and as such the present revision petition is not maintainable. Once it is held that revision petition is not maintainable, it is felt unnecessary to deal with the scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and entering into the merit of the case. This petition stands dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The parties shall bear their own costs. Return the LCR.