Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 147 (MEG)

Donush Siangshai v. Amos Dkhar

2022-06-06

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this application under Clause 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Court) Order 2014, has put a challenge to the order dated 11.02.2022, passed in T.S. No. 53 of 2017 by the Presiding Officer, Sub-ordinate District Council Court, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Court, Shillong, whereby the Suit of the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed on the plea of lack of jurisdiction raised by the defendant/respondent. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff had filed a Suit being Title Suit No. 9 of 2015, thereafter re-numbered as T.S. No. 53 of 2017, praying for a decree for registration and transfer of the suit property as per the schedule described in Para-21 of the Plaint, located at Bhagyakul, Laitumkhrah under a lease issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. 3. After institution of the Suit in 2015, and after written statements had been filed, the defendant (respondent herein) filed an application on August, 2019 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, praying for dismissal of the Suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter the Trail Court, by the order dated 11.02.2022 on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kyntiew Akor Suchiang v. Woston Hynniewta reported in (2017) 13 SCC 483 and of the Gauhati High Court in the State of Meghalaya v. Richard Lyngdoh reported in (2006) 2 GLR 328, dismissed the Suit for lack of jurisdiction. Being aggrieved as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way the instant revision application. 4. Ms. B. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case in hand is distinguishable from the cases that have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court, inasmuch as, the instant suit is with regard to suit property that is situated within the East Khasi Hills. She further submits that the objection with regard to jurisdiction was never taken up in the initial stage of the Suit. She further disputes the fact that the parties belong to Pnar community, the ground taken for questioning jurisdiction, and submits that even if the same was correct, there has been a considerable delay in filing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, added to the fact that the parties have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the District Council Court, Shillong. As such, she submits the order of the Trial Court is in error and warrants some interference by this Court. 5. Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. C.C.T Sangma, learned counsel for the respondents has firstly raised the question of maintainability of the instant revision in view of the availability of an appellate forum before the Judge, District Council Court. He submits that the matter can be taken up for appeal under Order 28 of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. He further submits that the power of this Court being pari materia to Section 115 CPC as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Acting Syiem of Hima Mylliem v. Bidington Kharir reported in (2020) I MJ 79, by application of Section 115 (2), the petitioner is bound to first approach the Court of the Judge, District Council Court. It is further submitted that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kyntiew Akor Suchiang v. Woston Hynniewta (supra) is binding under Article 141, and as such the revision by itself has no merits. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, firstly on the point of maintenance, the fact that the Suit has been instituted concerning and connected to property which is situated in East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya as described in the Plaint is undisputed. On perusal of the array of parties, it is also seen that the plaintiff appears to be a resident of East Khasi Hills where the property is situated. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Rule 47 of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 which provides for procedure in civil cases wherein it is stipulated, that the same shall be guided by the spirit but not bound by the letter of the CPC in all matters not covered by recognized customary laws and usages of the District. 7. In this backdrop, it is also expedient to examine Section 16 of the CPC which speaks that Suits are to be instituted where subject matter is situated, and that the same, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. 7. In this backdrop, it is also expedient to examine Section 16 of the CPC which speaks that Suits are to be instituted where subject matter is situated, and that the same, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. As far as the application of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is to be noted that the first judgment i.e. Kyntiew Akor Suchiang v. Woston Hynniewta (supra) concerns maintenance which is claimed by the wife stated to be the Pnar, living in Jaintia Hills and the husband a resident of Khasi Hills, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the District Council Court, Khasi Hills had no jurisdiction where one of the parties belonged to another District. In another matter in the case of State of Meghalaya v. Richard Lyngdoh (supra) the ratio of the judgment is that offences were triable by the District Council Court, even if prosecution was by police, if the dispute was between tribals. 8. On examination of the materials of the present case, the same appears to stand on a different footing altogether which no doubt needs closer examination. However, on the objections raised by the learned Senior counsel as to the maintainability, and the availability of an appellate forum, and the fact that in such matters by virtue of the judgment that a matter under Order 6, the revisional powers of this Court are to be exercised on the parameters of Section 115 CPC, this Revision is held to be not maintainable at this stage before this Court. 9. This revision application is disposed of, however, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application/appeal before the Judge, District Council Court. The learned Judge shall take up the matter expeditiously on the said appeal being filed taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and laws, which are prevalent in the matter, apart from the observations made by this Court. 10. No order as to costs.