JUDGMENT AND ORDER : S. Serto, J. Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. Elivil Zao, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is a civil reference arising out of Civil Appeal No. 1 /2015 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima. The brief facts which lead to the civil reference are briefly given herein below; The appellant/defendant in the said appeal pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,55,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff in the year 2005 with interest @ 8% p.m. As claimed by the appellant, the said amount was fully paid back with the interest in the year 2006. But to his surprise on 25-11-2011, the respondent/plaintiff filed a Misc Case No. 19/2011 before the Dobashi Court, Kohima stating that though the appellant/defendant had paid back a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- on three different occasions he was yet to pay back the balance amount, therefore, he was liable to repay the same. On 22-05-2013, the Dobashi Court, as claimed by the appellant, without taking any evidence passed an order dated 22-05-2013 which is given here below:- "On hearing the statement of both the parties the court observed that the statement of both the parties are contradicting to each other statement and as such without administering oath the instant case finds difficult to be disposed off. Therefore, the court on inquiry both the parties agreed to take oath, however since Mr. Neiphrelie had denied the agreement brought by Mr. S.D. Angami, Mr. Neiphrelie shall take oath by swearing his life. Annexure-A is a copy of the oath to be sworn. And if Mr. Neiphrelie fail to take oath he shall be liable to pay the loan principle amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- (rupees three lakh fifty five thousand) along with the interest of 5% which shall be calculated from the date of loan agreement till date of filing this instant case to be paid to Mr. S.D. Angami." 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant/defendant filed a Civil Appeal No. 4/2013, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima and the learned Civil Judge on hearing both the parties disposed the appeal with the following order:- "7. S.D. Angami." 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant/defendant filed a Civil Appeal No. 4/2013, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima and the learned Civil Judge on hearing both the parties disposed the appeal with the following order:- "7. After considering all the arguments and the records as placed before me, this court sees reason to doubt the justice of the decision rendered by the Dobashi's Court since no opportunity of calling of witnesses and examining the documents have been taken place. Therefore for a just decision of the case, the matter to be tried de novo. 8. With the above direction the present appeal to proceed for fresh trial. Parties to take steps accordingly." 4. The respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal against the above stated judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima before the learned District Judge, Kohima. The same was registered as Civil Appeal No. 07/2014. The learned District Judge upheld the order dated 22-09-2014 of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima by his order passed on 02-06-2015. The order is reproduced herein below: "Both parties present through respective counsels. Heard and satisfied. The lower court has passed the order for De Nova trial at DB's Court by recording the witnesses and documents. The lower court order dated 22/09/2014 passed in the court of Civil Judge Sr. Division is uphold." 5. Thereafter, the Dobashi Court, Kohima, passed the order dated 04-08-2015 wherein the appellant/defendant was directed to swear on 25-08-2015 failing which he was to pay a sum of Rs. 11,35,00/- to the respondent/defendant on or before 31-12-2015. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the translated order of Dobashi Court. Therefore, the same is given here below:- "Office of the deputy commissioner D.Bs court kohima Vide Misc Case No. 19/2015 On date 04/08/15 the District and Sessions Judge, Kohima, Nagaland Shri. Y. Maongkaba Imchen, NJS passed an order to both the parties in the D.Bs Court, following the order both the parties were present but Shri. Neiphrelie asked for some more time so the D.Bs Court, Kohima fixed another date i.e. 25th August, 2015. If he is willing to swear, he will be allowed to swear on the above date, if he is not able to swear he has to pay Rs. 11,35,00/- (rupees eleven lakh three thousand five hundred) only to Mr. If he is willing to swear, he will be allowed to swear on the above date, if he is not able to swear he has to pay Rs. 11,35,00/- (rupees eleven lakh three thousand five hundred) only to Mr. S.D Angami on or before 31st December, 2015 failing which he will be arrested as per an order." 6. Being highly aggrieved by the order dated 04-08-2015 of the Dobashi Court given above, the appellant once again filed an appeal before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima on the grounds as follows; (i) that lending and borrowing of money has nothing to do with the Naga Customary Law, therefore, the Dobashi Court which is a Customary Court has neither jurisdiction over the matter nor have the legal expertise or competency to decide such case. (ii) that since the judiciary has been separated from the executive, and there are Civil Courts established in Nagaland, vide Department of Justice and Law Notification No. LAW-322/79(Pt), dated 27-07-1999, such matter ought to have been dealt with by a Civil Court, lawfully established and not by the Dobashi Court. (iii) that in the case of Registrar General, Gauhati High Court v. Union of India and Others reported in 2013 (4) GLT 1109, the Gauhati High Court, in the order dated 16-09-2013 had directed that Civil Courts established in the State of Nagaland has to follow the Code of Civil Procedure. As such, and, since Civil Courts governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and manned by Judicial Officers are much better equipped in terms of law and infrastructures for dealing with such matters then the customary court of Dobashi which has no written procedures and infrastructures and manned by persons who had no training and experience for taking evidence and dealing with the laws involved in such case, it would be in the interest of justice that such case are tried by Civil Courts. (iv) that the loan was taken in the year 2005 and it was partly repaid in 2006, therefore, when the suit was filed in 2011 it was already time barred, and hence should not have been admitted. (iv) that the loan was taken in the year 2005 and it was partly repaid in 2006, therefore, when the suit was filed in 2011 it was already time barred, and hence should not have been admitted. (v) that the Dobashi court was directed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), in the Civil Appeal No. 4/2013, that the suit was be tried denovo and the same order was upheld by the learned District Judge, Kohima but the court of Dobashi did not try the suit in the way as required by law. (vi) that the Government of Nagaland passed an Act called "Nagaland Money Lenders Act, 2005, which provides that no money lender should charge interest on any loan at the rate exceeding more than 3% above the prevailing rate charge by the Banks, and the interest so charge should be on per annum basis and should be simple interest on the principal amount only. But in this case, the interest charge is 8% p.m. which is not only excessive but against the Act itself. 7. Pleading the grounds given above, the appeal was filed before the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima. However, the court of learned Civil Judge, Kohima, because of the circumstances stated above found itself in a dilemma, therefore, referred the case to this High Court. The order of the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima, which referred the said appeal is as follows;- "The present appeal petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Dobashi Court, Kohima, Nagaland under Rule 31 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (3rd Amendment) 1984 and also Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Learned counsel Sentiyanger for the Appellant/defendant present. The brief facts of the appellant's case is that a loan to the tune of Rs. 3,55,000/- (three lakh fifty five thousand only) was availed by the appellant/defendant from the respondent/plaintiff in the year 2005 @ 8% per month and all outstanding dues of the loan availed cleared. A case was filed in the Dobashi Court, Kohima against the appellant/defendant in 2011 against which an appeal was preferred before this Court and by a judgment/order of this court dated 22.09.2014, a direction was giving for hearing of the case denovo and to proceed for fresh trial. A case was filed in the Dobashi Court, Kohima against the appellant/defendant in 2011 against which an appeal was preferred before this Court and by a judgment/order of this court dated 22.09.2014, a direction was giving for hearing of the case denovo and to proceed for fresh trial. Against that, an appeal was preferred before the Court of District and Sessions Judge who by an order dated 02.06.2015 upheld this court's order but while doing so mentioned for denovo trial at DB's Court. After that the matter was heard at the DB's court who passed the impugned order dated 04.08.2015 and appellant/defendant being aggrieved had preferred this present appeal before the court. I have heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant. Also perused the appeal memo appeal and all the relevant documents as annexed herewith. This court had passed a directive while passing the judgment dated 22.09.2014 that the matter proceed for a fresh trial which was upheld by the District and Sessions Judge but while doing so directed the parties for denovo trial by the D.B's court by its order dated 02.06.2015. The DB's court heard the matter and passed the impugned order dated 04.08.2015. The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order has preferred the present appeal. I find it difficult and in a dilemma to take up the present case, firstly since this court had already passed its judgment dated 22.09.2014 directing for a fresh trial which was challenged before the Appellate Court and secondly the applicability of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937. The judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court reported in 2013 (4) GLT 1109 in W.P.(C) No. 5873/2006 has made the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure fully applicable to the regular courts manned by judicial officers in Nagaland. Since there are questions of law involved, I find this a fit case to be referred to the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court for a direction as to whether this court can entertain the present appeal in its present form. The matter is placed before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court through the Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench for necessary direction." 8. Both the learned counsel representing the parties submitted that there is no Act or Rule which defines the civil jurisdiction of the Dobashi court. The matter is placed before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court through the Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench for necessary direction." 8. Both the learned counsel representing the parties submitted that there is no Act or Rule which defines the civil jurisdiction of the Dobashi court. The only provision of law where Dobashi is conferred jurisdiction over civil cases is found at Rule 23 A of Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland. The Rule 23A reads as follows;- "23A. "The Dobhasis hence forward shall try and decide such civil cases only as may be referred to them by the Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be." It appears from this rule that the Dobashi court is an assistant to the Deputy Commissioner in deciding or settling disputes pertaining to civil matters. On 06.06.1970, the Government of Nagaland, Home Department notified what is called "Nagaland Dobhasis Service Rule, 1970", the same provides the recruitment rule and the rules governing the service of the Dobhasis. Other than that no mention is made about the powers and jurisdictions of Dobashis. Rule 24 of the same rule provides as follows;- "24. Mauzadars, gaonburas, chiefs, headmen of Khels, Dobhasis or other village authorities sitting with the village elders in council are empowered to try cases without limit as to the amount, but with the following reservations:- (a) they may not try suits in which a native of the plains or native or another village not resident in their jurisdiction is a party. (b) all suits be decided in open Darbar, in the presence of the parties and at least three respectable witnesses." It can be seen from this rule that the Dobashi and other customary courts can decide any case without limit as to the amount. The court of Dobashi comes under definition of customary court. Chapter-4 of Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland provides that Dobashi court is basically a customary court which is established to assist the Deputy Commissioner of a District to decide cases where customary laws are involved or which are customary in nature. In the present case, it is a suit for recovery of loan, therefore, is not customary in nature or where customary law is involved. In the present case, it is a suit for recovery of loan, therefore, is not customary in nature or where customary law is involved. As such, one has to see whether or not the Dobashi court would be able to decide such case effectively as per the laws applicable in such case. In a money suit such as the present case there are so many issues of facts and law involved like as the ones raised by the appellant/defendant. Therefore, in my considered opinion but with due respect to the customary courts, it would be unfair and not reasonable to expect such courts who are not provided with necessary infrastructures or paraphernalias, and are not manned by people trained in laws applicable or involved in such cases, and having experience in taking evidence to do full justice in deciding such cases. For instance, in this case in view of the opposite contentions of the parties, evidence has to be taken both of oral and documentary if any, law of limitation, the provisions of Nagaland Money Lenders Act, provisions of Indian Evidence Act and besides, the relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code which is already invoked in so far as civil courts are concerned and as far as it does not come into conflict with Article 371(A) of the Constitution, all these has to be considered while deciding the case. Now, that we have civil courts established by law in the State which are manned by the Judicial Officers who are not only law graduates but trained to try such cases, it would be in the interest of justice to utilize their service for delivery of justice. In the present case where provisions of such laws as mentioned above are involved the civil courts which are manned by Judicial Officers who by virtue of their training and experience are well equipped are better place to deal with the same. 9. Before I conclude it would be relevant to quote what has been decided by the Division Bench of this court in the case of cited by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court v. Union of India and Others, the Division Bench of this Court at para-32 to 34. 9. Before I conclude it would be relevant to quote what has been decided by the Division Bench of this court in the case of cited by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court v. Union of India and Others, the Division Bench of this Court at para-32 to 34. The same is as follows;- "(32) It is, thus, clear that if legislative intent is to bar applicability of CPC and Cr.PC to customary courts or courts manned by executive officers, the said bar cannot be held to be applicable to regular courts. This interpretation will be harmonious with the functioning of regular courts under the Civil Courts Act and also customary or executive courts under the Administration of Justice Rules. Accordingly, we hold that the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 is applicable to the districts of Dima Hasao and Karbi Anglong in the State of Assam and the States of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland. The Administration of Justice Rules applicable in the State of Nagaland and the North East Frontier (Administration and Justice) Regulations, 1945 applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh will give way to the provisions of the Civil Courts Act to the extent of inconsistency in relation to functioning of Courts manned by members of cadre of judicial service. (33) We further hold that CPC and Cr.PC are applicable to the regularly constituted civil and criminal Courts without in any manner affecting operation of Article 371A or the functioning of village, customary or any other courts other than the regularly constituted civil and criminal courts in the State of Nagaland manned by members of judicial service. (34) We make it clear that this order will not affect validity of any orders already passed without following the provisions of CPC or Cr.PC on an understanding that CPC and Cr.PC were not applicable to the State of Nagaland". The judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court has left no room for any doubt that civil matters which are not strictly pertaining to customary laws or are customary in nature are triable by civil courts established in the State. 10. From the above judgment, it is clear that in all the civil courts in the State of Nagaland the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable. Therefore, civil courts have jurisdiction to try money suits. 10. From the above judgment, it is clear that in all the civil courts in the State of Nagaland the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable. Therefore, civil courts have jurisdiction to try money suits. In view of what has been stated above it would be in the interest of justice for a civil court having jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kohima should try the case if it has the jurisdiction, if not the file may be send up to the District Judge, Kohima who shall allot the same to any civil court having jurisdiction to try and dispose. With this, the Civil Reference case is disposed. Send back the record.