Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 854 (GAU)

Vanlalrema v. Zosangliana

2013-12-09

L.S.JAMIR

body2013
Heard Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner as well as Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl in RFA No. 24/2012. 3. The petitioner had filed a suit against the respondent before the learned Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl by way of Declaratory Suit No. 1/2008 for declaring him as a legal owner of the immovable property covered by LSC No. 104801/01/420 of 2005 located at Mission veng. The learned Court of Addl. Subordinate District Council Court passed judgment and order dated 21.01.2009 in the aforesaid Declaratory Suit No. 1/2008 in favour of the petitioner declaring him to be the legal owner of the LSC No. 104801/01/420 of 2005. 4. Being unsatisfied, the respondent preferred an appeal which was numbered as RFA No. 11/2009 before the District Council Court at Aizawl against the judgment and order dated 21.1.2009. With the implementation of the Civil Courts Act, 2005, the said RFA No. 11/2009 was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl. After hearing parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl dismissed RFA No. 11/2009 by judgment and order dated 9.4.2012. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent again filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.4.2012 as well as judgment and order dated 21.1.2009 before the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl under section 17(2) read with section 10(2) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005. The same was registered as RFA No. 24/2012 which was disposed of by Order dated 11.2.2013 whereby both the earlier judgments passed by the learned Addl. Subordinate District Council Court and the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl were set aside and quashed. Being aggrieved, the present revision petition by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl is without jurisdiction and the same is, therefore, liable to be set aside inasmuch as the learned Senior Civil Judge-I had passed judgment and order dated 9.4.2012 as an appellate court and, therefore, no appeal lies before the learned Addl. Judge-I, Aizawl. District Judge-I, Aizawl is without jurisdiction and the same is, therefore, liable to be set aside inasmuch as the learned Senior Civil Judge-I had passed judgment and order dated 9.4.2012 as an appellate court and, therefore, no appeal lies before the learned Addl. Judge-I, Aizawl. He also submits that any appeal from the judgment and order of the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl would lie before the High Court and, therefore, on this ground, the impunged judgment and order dated 11.2.2013 is liable to be struck down. Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in his usual fairness has submitted that no appeal from the judgment and order passed by the learned Senior Single Judge-I who was sitting as an appellate court would lie before the court of the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl and, therefore, he also submits that the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl has committed an error by exceeding his jurisdiction. 7. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. This court in a number of cases has already held that the District Judge/Addl. District Judge cannot entertain an appeal from the judgment and order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction. It has also been held by this court, after discussion of the relevant provisions of law including section 17(2) as well as section 10(2) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005, that a second appeal can be filed only before the High Court and that too on question of law alone. Considering the facts that the learned Addl. District Judge-I had entertained RFA No. 24/2012 which was an appeal from the judgment and order dated 9.4.2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl while exercising appellate jurisdiction, this court therefore, has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl had no jurisdiction to entertain RFA No. 24/2012. Accordingly, the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl in RFA No. 24/2012 is quashed and set aside. 9. Needless to say that the aggrieved party shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. 11. No cost.