Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 61 (MEG)

Priska Sun v. Christabell Ryngdong

2019-03-05

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No 1 (since deceased) in the year 1990 as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 6 of 1992 before the Sub-ordinate District Council Court for eviction and other reliefs against the petitioner herein and her deceased husband. Her husband was arrayed as defendant No. 1 and the petitioner as defendant No.2. The Suit was contested by the husband of the petitioner1 and written statements were filed. During pendency of the Title Suit, the husband of the petitioner expired and the suit continued for trial. 2. The trial court thereafter by judgment and Order dated 13.07.2011 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent No. 1. As such being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 13.07.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, District Council Court; the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Judge, District Council Court. However, on presentation of the appeal, the Judge, District Council Court namely Shri S. Kharsyiemlieh returned the memorandum of appeal of the petitioner with the following observations: "I have also perused the memorandum of Appeal along with Annexures. After careful perusal of the same, it is found that the suit under instant appeal has directly been involved by me during the time that I was a lawyer whereby I was engaged as a lawyer for the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, after careful perusal of the same and also after careful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is not proper on my part to take up the instant appeal. Therefore, in view of my above observations, the memorandum of appeal along with its annexures is hereby returned back to the Appellants.." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that return of the memorandum of appeal of the petitioner herein was illegal and unwarranted in law, inasmuch as, though the said Court may be disabled from hearing the appeal, the same should have been accepted and kept in abeyance till such Court is available to take up the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Execution case, being Execution case No. 1 of 2014 arising out of the said Title Suit has also been filed by the respondents against which an application under Order 21 Rule 26 C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for stay of the Execution. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Execution case, being Execution case No. 1 of 2014 arising out of the said Title Suit has also been filed by the respondents against which an application under Order 21 Rule 26 C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for stay of the Execution. The Executing Court, by order dated 02.09.2016, stayed the execution proceedings for two months, but the same is continuing till date. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits since the Judgment and Decree has been passed by Shri. E. Myrten who is the Additional Judge, but as he is also disabled from taking up the appeal, he prays that firstly, the Memorandum of Appeal be restored to file, and secondly, that the Appeal be transferred to any other court of competent jurisdiction for disposal. 4. I have heard the learned counsels who jointly submit that the matter may be transferred to the court of the Judge District Council Court Jowai, which is a court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the matter is allowed and the memorandum of appeal filed before the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong and the connected records are directed to be transferred to the Court of learned Judge, District Council Court, Jowai. The parties are put on notice to appear before the said court on 20.03.2019. 5. The records be transmitted immediately for registration of the Appeal in the District Council Court, Jowai for expeditious hearing and the matter be disposed of preferably within a period of 3(three) months from the date of appearance of the parties. 6. It is made clear that the parties will be at liberty to raise all issues in contention including limitation etc. 7. The matter is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.