JUDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Ansari, learned counsel, representing the respondent. 2. This is an application, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908, praying for setting aside and quashing of an impugned order dated 09.08.2023/24, passed in BSR/CA-12/22 by the I/C Additional District & Sessions Judge, Basar, Western Zone, Leparada. 3. The basic grievance of the petitioner herein, is that the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar, has passed the aforesaid impugned order without affording any opportunity of defending the case of the petitioner through proper trial, evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses. 4. The brief facts of the case in the instant petition are stated herein below: - 4.1. The father of the petitioner has purchased a plot of Jhum land measuring 3.5 acres from one Miken Basar of Gori village, vide execution of a Sale Deed dated 26.12.1997, however, in the year 1980, Shri Miken Basar, claimed that the petitioner’s father had occupied excess of land as sold to the petitioner’s father. Accordingly, a detailed survey of the land was carried out and found that the petitioner’s father occupied excess of Jhum land, measuring 1.1 acres. A dispute over the said plot of land was, thereafter, resolved by sacrificing a cow at the community feast and one male Mithun and one brass bowl (in Galo tribe known as Home bati) was given to the aforesaid Miken Basar in lieu of the 1.1acres of Jhum land. 4.2. Thereafter, in 1997, dispute over the aforesaid 1.1 acres of land cropped up again and the matter was referred to the village authority (Local Keba) and the matter was resolved as per the Galo customary law. Though the matter was settled in the aforesaid local Keba, again on 15.05.1997, a second round of Keba i.e., a Bango Level Keba was held, wherein, a decision was arrived at that Nyado Basar (the respondent) will cultivate his 2 Bigas of land which he was already cultivating and Nyado Basar shall sacrifice any animal and give a local brass plate to Shri Nyajum Basar (the father of the petitioner) on the ground that both the parties in dispute are brothers and they should maintain a cordial relationship between them. 4.3. 4.3. After several years, again on 28.05.2014, the respondent filed a complaint before the Additional District Commissioner (ADC), Basar, against the petitioner for violation of the Bango Level Keba order no. BSR/JDL/03/1997. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the ADC, Basar, issued order no. BSR/LK-176/13-14/VOL-III dated 02.06.2014, whereby, he fixed a Bango Level Keba to decide the dispute between the parties on 16.06.2014. In terms of the aforesaid order, the Bango Level Keba held on 16.06.2014 and decided that Shri Nyado Basar shall continue to cultivate the portion of land but, cannot sell the land without the consent of the family members. 4.4. Being aggrieved by the Bango Level Keba decision held on 16.06.2014, the petitioner along with his mother filed a Civil Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 138/2014 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar. However, the aforesaid Court committed the matter to the ADC, Basar, on the ground that a regular civil Court does not have the jurisdiction under “Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, (herein after referred as the Regulation of 1945). The ADC, Basar, on 11.03.2020, disposed of the aforesaid case i.e., the BSR/LK-176/13-14/VOL-III in favor of the respondent. 4.5. The petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.03.2020, passed by the ADC, Basar, preferred a Civil Revision Petition being CRP No. 08(AP)/2020 before the Hon’ble High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench. This Court, vide order dated 14.07.2022, was pleased to set aside and quash the aforesaid order dated 11.03.2020, whereby this Court remanded the matter to the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, with a direction that the parties were to appear before the aforesaid Court within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment & Order and, on receipt of the Judgment & Order, the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, shall proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law and make an endeavor to dispose of the same within a period of 3(three) months from passing of the Judgment & Order. 4.6. The In-charge learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, shall proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law and make an endeavor to dispose of the same within a period of 3(three) months from passing of the Judgment & Order. 4.6. The In-charge learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, vide an order dated 09.08.23/24 in BSR/CA-12/22, disposed of the case in the following terms:- “Considering the fact that both the parties are by blood, relatives and indigenous of Arunachal Pradesh belongs to Galo community, I am inclined to apply the inherent power of this Court in the interest of justice to both the parties for permanent solution of the case as appears on the case records as well as admitted fact as recorded by this Court with a direction to make the disputed plot no. 3 shown in the map to make at 50-50 ratio and to demarcate it permanently by installing a permanent pillar to be erected as a boundary which shall be executed by the DC, Leparada or SDO headquarter with the help of DLRSO with the further condition that the other condition laid down in first Keba decision shall stand vacated as it is not executed till date. And condition in Keba decision that Sh. Nyado Basar shall not transferred the property to any other person, if any, shall be vacated as it is a void condition. The undisputed plot no. 4 which is in possession of Sh. Nyado Basar and the undisputed plot no. 2 under possession of Sh. Jumli Basar shall be continuously in their respective possession forever. It is also directed that Sh. Nyado Basar shall opted the first 50% of the said divided land as he had developed the land first upon the disputed land.” 4.7. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 09.08.2023/24 in BSR/CA-12/22 (Civil Appeal No. 138/2014), passed by the learned In-charge Addl. District Judge, Basar, has instituted the present revision petition. 5. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father late Nyajum Basar purchased a plot of land measuring 3.5 acres from Shri Miken Basar of Gori village, by executing a Sale Deed on 26.12.1977. He submits that Shri Miken Basar again approached the petitioner’s father and forefather late Harnya Basar, as he wanted to sell the remaining portion of the Jhum land adjacent to the earlier purchased plot of land. He submits that Shri Miken Basar again approached the petitioner’s father and forefather late Harnya Basar, as he wanted to sell the remaining portion of the Jhum land adjacent to the earlier purchased plot of land. Accordingly, the petitioner’s father and forefather, while accepting the proposal, agreed to purchase the remaining portion of land in consideration of one Mithun. He submits that the petitioner’s forefather developed the aforesaid Jhum land into WRC field along with the present respondent. However, the respondent claims the whole WRC field and did not allow the petitioner’s father to use such field and therefore, the respondent made a complaint before the SDO, Basar, disputing the land right of the petitioner. Accordingly, the aforesaid SDO, Basar, passed an order directing the Gaon Buras of Gori village to conduct a Keba on 30.04.1997. He submits that the Keba members decided that Shri Nyado Basar shall retain and cultivate his own portion of land and WRC field as cultivated earlier. The Keba further held that Shri Nyado Basar shall sacrifice a cow for Nyajum Basar and to give something to Nyajum Basar as token of love in lieu of retaining and cultivating a portion of WRC field. He further submits that the dispute did not stop there and so a Bango Level Keba dated 15.05.1997 was held between the parties at Basar Dere, wherein, Bango Level Keba members decided that Shri Nyado Basar shall cultivate his 2 acres of land which he was already cultivating and to give one local brass plate to Shri Nyajum Basar. 6. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that being aggrieved with the Bango Level Keba decision dated 15.05.1997, the petitioner’s father filed an appeal petition before the SDO-cum-EAC, Basar, for rehearing of the case. However, nothing happened to the case as yet. He submits that after almost a gap of 17 years, the respondent, on 28.05.2014, filed a complaint petition for violation of the Bango Level Keba, reclaiming the title of land in question. Accordingly, the ADC, Basar, illegally issued an order dated 02.06.2014 to conduct a Bango Level Keba on 16.06.2014, without any authority of law under the said Regulation of 1945. Accordingly, the ADC, Basar, illegally issued an order dated 02.06.2014 to conduct a Bango Level Keba on 16.06.2014, without any authority of law under the said Regulation of 1945. He submits that a Bango Level Keba was held on 16.06.2014, wherein it was decided that the land purchased by late Nyajum Basar and he cannot be dispossessed from the disputed land, though, it was also decided that Shri Nyado Basar cannot sell the disputed land without the consent of the family members. He submits that being highly aggrieved with the Bango Level Keba decision dated 16.06.2014, a joint application was filed in the matter before the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, in Civil Appeal No. 138/2014 and the aforesaid District Judge, Basar, decided that it was not the proper Court/forum to adjudicate the decision rendered by the village authority under the said Regulation, 1945 and thereby, referred the matter to the ADC, Basar. Accordingly, the ADC, Basar, passed an order on 11.03.2020. He submits that the ADC, Basar, has passed the order without conducting a fair trial, more particularly, without recording the statement of the petitioner and Shri Yipum Basar, resulting in gross miscarriage of principles of natural justice. He further submits that the ADC, Basar, has passed the order dated 11.03.2020, illegally upholding the decision of the village authority order dated 30.04.1997 and non-existing Bango Level Keba dated 25.05.1997 and thereby, decided the title of the land measuring an area of 8252 square meters as shown in the map owned by Shri Nyado Basar and letting the other portion of the land in favor of the family of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the order dated 02.06.2014 and 11.03.2020, passed by the ADC, Basar, was challenged in CRP No. 08(AP)/2022 before this Court, the Hon’ble Court has rightly allowed the Criminal Revision Petition wherein, the order dated 02.06.2014 and 11.03.2020 were found unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, had committed a grave error in not following the due procedure of law in passing the impugned order dated 09.08.2024. He submits that the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 was passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, without any evidence being produced by the parties or orchestrated by any cross-examination. District Judge, Basar, had committed a grave error in not following the due procedure of law in passing the impugned order dated 09.08.2024. He submits that the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 was passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, without any evidence being produced by the parties or orchestrated by any cross-examination. He further submits that the aforesaid Court failed to take into account the fact that any proceeding under the aforesaid Regulation of 1945, the Court shall be guided by the spirit of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which is a procedural law providing opportunities to the parties to effectively ventilate their grievances and secure adjudication of their rights and liabilities in accordance with law. However, in the instant case, the aforesaid learned Court came to a finding without adhering to such procedures. He submits that a civil suit has to be decided by following the due procedural law as provided under the CPC, 1908, and has to be decided by framing issues and conducting a proper trial. He submits, however, in the instant case, that neither any issues were framed nor any opportunities were granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence or make any arguments before the disposal of the instant case. He further submits that the aforesaid Addl. District Judge, Basar, had no jurisdiction and power to modify the Keba decision dated 30.04.1997, which attained its finality as appeal was filed against the aforesaid order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the aforesaid aspect also, the order dated 09.08.2024 is bad in the eye of law. He submits that the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 suffers from patent infirmity and as such, malady in the eye of law and as such, the same cannot be legally given effect to. 8. While arguing his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a written note containing his arguments, which has been kept on record and duly considered. 9. Mr. N. Ansari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not factually correct. He submits that, in fact, in the year 1977, Shri Harnya Basar (father of the respondent) asked his son Shri Nyajum Basar (father of the petitioner) to look for a land in Basar area for purpose of purchasing the same. He submits that, in fact, in the year 1977, Shri Harnya Basar (father of the respondent) asked his son Shri Nyajum Basar (father of the petitioner) to look for a land in Basar area for purpose of purchasing the same. Ultimately, a suitable land was found and accordingly, both the parties i.e Shri Miken Basar and Shri Harnya Basar discussed about the purchase of the land. It is submitted that a major part of the payment for the aforesaid land was made by Shri Harnya Basar by paying a Mithun to the Shri Miken Basar. He submits that the land was developed into a WRC field by Shri Harnya Basar with the help of his son Shri Nyajum Basar. He further submits that in the year 1983, Shri Harnya Basar, (father of the respondent), conferred the under-developed portion of land to the respondent and the respondent developed the said land into WRC field. And at that time, the father of the petitioner, Shri Nyajum Basar did not raise any objection and since then, the respondent is cultivating at the said portion of land. He submits that in year 1985, during the final transaction of the purchase of the land, the seller of the land, namely, Shri Miken Basar offered another portion of the land adjacent to the purchased land, and on the same day, the Shri Harnya Basar conferred the said adjacent land to the respondent and at that time also, the father of the petitioner, Shri Nyajum Basar did not raise any objection and happily accepted the decision made by his father. He submits that since then Shri Nyado Basar, the respondent has been cultivating 8252 sq mtrs of the land, which has been developed as WRC field by the respondent. He submits that after the death of Shri Harnya Basar (father of the respondent and grandfather of the petitioner), the deceased father of the petitioner (Late Shri Nyajum Basar) who was the elder brother of the respondent, started to claim the whole of the land to deprive the respondent from his share of land. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that facing with such illegal demand, a compliant before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Basar, was made and accordingly, a village Keba was held on 30.04.1977. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that facing with such illegal demand, a compliant before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Basar, was made and accordingly, a village Keba was held on 30.04.1977. He submits that the Keba decided that the portion of the WRC field developed by the respondent shall be cultivated by the respondent. He submits that when the petitioner’s father did not obey the decision of the Keba, a Bango level Keba was conducted on 15.05.1977, which decided that the respondent had to sacrifice an animal for Shri Nyajum Basar, (petitioner’s father) who was not keeping well at that point of time. He further submits that the aforesaid decision of the Bango Level Keba or the village Keba, were never challenged by the petitioner or his father. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the illegal claim of the petitioner kept on rising and therefore, being helpless, the respondent filed a complaint before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar on 28.05.2014. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar forwarded the complaint to the Bango Level Keba, which on 16.06.2014 decided the issue in favour of the respondent, however, with a condition that the respondent shall not be able to sale the aforesaid land without the permission of the family members. He submits that petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Court, Basar and the same was referred to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar, by the Additional District Judge citing lack of jurisdiction on his part. He submits that the aforesaid appeal too was decided in favour of the respondent by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar, vide his order dated 11.03.2020. The aforesaid decision of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar, however, was challenged by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court and he submits that this Hon’ble Court, vide its order 14.07.2022, set aside the aforesaid order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar and the Bango Level Keba decision dated 16.06.2024, finding that the Bango Level Keba is recognized as a forum for resolving land and other disputes between the parties. And as such, the order dated 02.06.2014 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar, referring the complaint to the Bango Level Committee to decide the land dispute between the parties was without any jurisdiction. And as such, the order dated 02.06.2014 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar, referring the complaint to the Bango Level Committee to decide the land dispute between the parties was without any jurisdiction. He submits that with the aforesaid conclusion, this Hon’ble Court allowed the civil revision petition of the petitioner and accordingly, set aside the aforesaid order dated 02.06.2014, whereby, the ADC referred the matter to Bango Level Keba and also set aside the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar deciding the dispute in favour of the respondent. He submits that this Hon’ble Court, thereafter, remanded the matter to the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Basar to proceed for hearing of the matter in accordance with law. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, he further submits that the In-Charge Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, has not committed any error or any material irregularity in passing the order dated 09.03.2024 in connection to BSR/CA-12/2022. He submits that the dispute involved in this case was decided way back by the village Keba on 30.04.1977 and BSR/CA-12/2022 was, in fact, an appeal. As such, question of recording, examination and cross examination of witnesses do not arise at all. He submits that the aforesaid court had adjudicated and decided the case on the basis of the facts, evidence on record and the submissions advanced by the respective counsels for both the parties. Therefore, there was no irregularities in the impugned order dated 09.03.2024. 13. The learned counsel while referring to village Keba decided on 30.04.1977, submits that the village Keba had clearly mentioned that the land as claimed by Shri Nyajum Basar was not totally/fully purchased by Shri Nyajum Basar. Late Harnya Basar had given one Mithun to the seller as part of consideration of the plot. Therefore, Shri Nyado Basar cannot be dispossessed from his portion of WRC land and decided that Shri Nyado Basar shall sacrifice a cow for Shri Nyajum Basar, on the days to come. He submits that this decision of the Keba was never assailed by the petitioner and therefore, it reached finality. 14. The learned counsel submits that in view of the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Basar, in fact, the petitioner will be in a gainful position than the respondent. He submits that this decision of the Keba was never assailed by the petitioner and therefore, it reached finality. 14. The learned counsel submits that in view of the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Basar, in fact, the petitioner will be in a gainful position than the respondent. He submits that in terms of the aforesaid order, in fact, the petitioner will get more than 70% of the land. In view of the above also, he submits that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner, as he will not suffer any irreparable harm and injury. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that one Sale Deed dated 26.12.1977 has been annexed in the instant petition by the petitioner which is a new piece of document as the same was never brought before any of the Keba authority held on 30.04.1977, 15.05.1977 and 16.06.2014. Therefore, he submits that the Sale Deed dated 26.12.1977, is apparently and admittedly a concocted document and the same cannot be taken into consideration by this Court. He further submits that the Sale Deed neither has signature, thumb impression of the seller nor signatures of the parties. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that, vide the order dated 14.07.2022, this Hon’ble Court remanded the records of the instant case to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar and the same was registered as BSR Civil Appeal No.12/2022 which was decided by the aforesaid court on 09.08.2024, wherein, the petitioner had ample opportunities to place evidence before the court, however, the same was not done by the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot question the veracity of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 09.08.2024. He submits that the aforesaid court provided sufficient opportunities to both the parties to submit their respective written arguments but the petitioner failed to submit the same, which can be substantiated from the order dated 06.09.2023, passed by the aforesaid court. 17. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot question the veracity of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 09.08.2024. He submits that the aforesaid court provided sufficient opportunities to both the parties to submit their respective written arguments but the petitioner failed to submit the same, which can be substantiated from the order dated 06.09.2023, passed by the aforesaid court. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent submits, by citing the case of Tarong Yapi vs. Teken Taten , 2022 0 Supreme (GAU) 1106 , that vide the aforesaid Judgment dated 27.05.2022, a coordinate bench of this Hon’ble High Court has held that when the District Judge or Additional District Judge is exercising the Appellate jurisdiction against the judgment of the customary court, the said court of District Judge or Additional District Judge shall be guided by the spirit of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is so because the Appeal is a continuation of civil proceedings adjudicated by the customary court. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the District Judge or Additional District Judge shall be bound to follow the procedure mandated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only, while exercising the jurisdiction to proceed with the case de novo, not other ways. He submits that in the instant case, there was no such direction from this Court vide judgment and order date 14.07.2022 passed in CRP No.08/2020 to start the case de novo. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge did not start the proceeding de novo, rather he continued the case as an appeal arising from the order of the ADC. Therefore, he submits that there is no infirmity in passing of the order dated 09.08.2024. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits on the strength of the case i.e Tsering and Ors Vs. Sange @ Bonpu and Ors. /b>. decided on 29.11.2024 that it is open for the learned Additional District Judge while deciding an appeal arising out of customary law Court to dispose of the appeal based on the materials available on record and if there is any doubt with regard to the decision so arrived or for arriving at a just and fair decision, it would be open for the court to proceed with the case de novo, in other words, to inquire into the issues arising afresh. He submits that, therefore, it is open for the Additional District Judge to decide whether he is satisfied with the materials placed before him for deciding the issue or not, and if at all, he is not satisfied, then only he may proceed to receive further evidence from the parties to the proceeding as well as summoning of any document(s) to satisfy itself with regard to the issue arising before it in the appeal. Therefore, he submits that in the instant case, as the matter before the Additional District Judge, Basar, came in the nature of an appeal along with all the materials before the ADC and the ADC therein, had decided the matter after taking all the relevant materials, statements of the parties as well as after hearing the parties in question, there was no further need for any de novo trial. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that this Court may not interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Basar, on 09.08.2024. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted a detailed written argument which is taken into consideration while authoring the instant judgment and order by this Court. 20. This Court after hearing both the counsels for the parties, going through the materials brought before this Court, the case laws cited by both the parties as well as upon consideration of the written arguments submitted by the respective counsels has come to the opinion that the issue that is to be decided in the instant case is actually not very complicated. Though lengthy arguments have been made by the counsels for both the parties due to the factual complexities, what is discernable from the above is that the core issue is whether the learned Additional District Court, Basar, should have decided the case i.e. BSR/CA-12/2022, on the basis of the materials already available on record, in addition to the enquiry which was directed by the learned court or on the basis of a fresh trial or de novo trial conducted between the contesting parties. 21. The learned counsel of the petitioner assertively argued that the direction passed by this Hon’ble Court, vide the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2022 has been followed or not adhered to by the learned Additional District Judge by not hearing the whole matter afresh. 21. The learned counsel of the petitioner assertively argued that the direction passed by this Hon’ble Court, vide the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2022 has been followed or not adhered to by the learned Additional District Judge by not hearing the whole matter afresh. He submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has committed a grave error by passing the order on the basis of the power provided under Section 151 of CPC. He submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had misinterpreted the provisions of Section 151 of CPC on deciding the matter. He submitted that the inherent powers of the civil court under the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE could be found in Sections starting from Section 148 to Section 153 A of the aforesaid Code. He submitted that a cumulative reading of the sections provide that these sections cover only trivial issues like modification of judgments, decrees or orders as well as separate proceedings. He submitted that the sections collectively provides for the court to utilize it’s inherent power in specific circumstances outlined in the aforementioned Sections. He submitted that only on the basis of the sketch map prepared by the Land Department as per the order of Additional District Judge, the order of dividing the disputed land in 50:50 ratio between the parties is totally untenable and unsustainable under the laws. 22. This court has also considered the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Durgesh Sharma Vs. Jayshree Sharma , (2008) 9 SCC 642 as well as the case, namely, Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar , AIR 1964 SC 993 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex court has held that the inherent power under Section 151 CPC may be exercised ex debito justitiae, in those cases where there is no expressed provision in the court. It was further held by the Apex court that the aforesaid power cannot be exercised in contravention or in conflict of or ignoring expressed and specific provisions of law. The learned counsel further cited the case of The Official Liquidator Vs. Raghawa Desikachar and Ors. , (1974) 2 SCC 741 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the facts and circumstances of that case, has held that there was no justification, whatsoever, for the district court to reject the evidence which the respondent has intended to lead or to disallow the production of documents other than those already produced. 23. Raghawa Desikachar and Ors. , (1974) 2 SCC 741 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the facts and circumstances of that case, has held that there was no justification, whatsoever, for the district court to reject the evidence which the respondent has intended to lead or to disallow the production of documents other than those already produced. 23. This Court respectfully agrees to the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. As far as the jurisdiction and power under the provision of Section 151 of the CPC is concerned, there is no disagreement that the same has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional situations. However, this court finds no relevancy of the case i.e. the Official Liquidator (supra) to the case in hand before this Court, due to the fact that no materials have been brought before this Court to show that the petitioner, herein, had desired to bring in any evidence or documents before the court of Additional District Judge, Basar, by filing any petition which was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Basar. 24. Having heard the respective counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it may be relevant at this point of time, to reproduce the extract of the operative portion of the judgment of this Court, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in CRP No. 08/2020 (Jumli Basar vs. Addl. Deputy Commissioner & Another) dated 14.07.2022 :- “In view of judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Registrar General, Gauhati High Court vs. Union of India & Ors. 2013 (4) GLT 1109 and also in view of proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, notified on 12.04.2021 in Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, the matter is remanded to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Basar. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Basar, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. On receipt of the order of this Court, the learned Additional District & Session Judge, Basar, shall proceed to hear the matter in accordance with law and make an endeavor to dispose of the same within a period of 3(three) months from today.” 25. On receipt of the order of this Court, the learned Additional District & Session Judge, Basar, shall proceed to hear the matter in accordance with law and make an endeavor to dispose of the same within a period of 3(three) months from today.” 25. It may be relevant at this point of time, to consider the provisions under Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, which is reproduced herein below: - "15. Appeals etc.: (1) Appeals from the decree or order passed by a Court of District Judge and Courts of an Additional District Judge in original suits and proceedings of civil nature shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the High Court. (2) Appeals from the decree and orders passed by a Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in original suits and proceedings of civil nature, shall when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the Court of the District Judge of that district or in the Court of Additional District Judge where such Court exists or the High Court as the case may be. (3) Appeals from the decree or order passed by a Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in original suits or proceedings of a civil nature, shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the Court of Civil Judge (senior Division) of the district. Provided that, any appeal on civil suits pending in the Courts of Deputy Commissioner shall be disposed of by the concerned Deputy Commissioner(s) under the provisions of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, as expeditiously as possible but, not later than one year from the date of coming into force of this Act. Provided further that, from the date of commencement of this Act, in case an appeal is preferred against the judgment of Customary Court in the Court of District Judge or in the Court of Additional District Judge as the case may be, the Court of District Judge or the Court of Additional District Judge, may dispose of the same or proceed with the case de novo." 26. From the perusal of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the said Act of 2021, it is clear that from the date of commencement of the Act, in case, any appeal is preferred against the customary Court in the Court of the District Judge or in the Court of the Additional District Judge, as the case may be, the Court of District Judge, or the Court of Additional District Judge, may dispose of the same or proceed with the case de novo. Therefore, it is clear that it is open for the Court of the learned District Judge or Additional District Judge, if satisfied, to dispose of the appeal based on the materials available on record and in the event, there is any doubt with regard to the decision so arrived and for arriving at a just and fair decision in the matter, it would be open to the Court of the learned District Judge or Additional District Judge to proceed with the case de novo, in other words, to enquire into the issues arising afresh. This legal position has also been upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tsering & Ors. (supra) wherein the Co-ordinate Bench held that the power to proceed with the case, de novo, cannot be construed to be a power conferred upon the Court of the learned District Judge to consider the appeal dehors the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It only mandates that the appellate Court would be in a position to receive evidence from the parties to the proceeding as well as summoning of documents to satisfy itself with regard to the issue arising before it in the appeal and not further. 27. In the instant case in hand, it is not disputed that the Bango Level Keba decision of 1977 was never challenged though the decision was not executed or certified. As far as, the subsequent appeals, i.e. firstly, the order of Bango Level Keba held on 16.06.2014 as well as the appeal against the aforesaid decision of the Bango Level Keba held on 16.06.2014, before the ADC, Basar, which was decided on 11.03.2020, were set aside by this Court in the above referred civil revision petition i.e., CRP No. 08/2020, therefore, factually, there is no appeal as such before the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Basar. District Judge, Basar. More so, due to the fact that vide the aforesaid judgment dated 14.07.2022, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court decided that the Bango Level Keba is not a committee recognized under the aforesaid Regulation of 1945. 28. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement, it can be safely derived that the orders or the decisions of the Bango Level Keba are nullity before the law and the same are not recognized under the Regulation, 1945. It is also a fact that the decision of the Bango Level Keba held in 1977 was never under challenge. The aforesaid appeal before the ADC, Basar, was in fact, against the Bango Level Keba dated 16.06.2014. 29. In view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the Bango Level Keba itself is not recognized under the aforesaid Regulation of 1945, the order dated 11.03.2020, passed by the ADC, Basar, is also not sustainable. Therefore, when the matter was remanded to the Addl. District Judge, Basar, the learned Court below has rightly mentioned out in its impugned order dated 09.08.2024 that there is no pending appeal, as all the appeals were set aside and quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. 30. In the aforesaid background of facts, now, this Court is required to examine the legality and validity of the order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned Court of Addl. District Judge, Basar. 31. It is also seen from the aforesaid judgment dated 14.07.2022, that there was no direction as to whether the matter is to be heard on the basis of the materials available before the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, or to be heard the matter afresh. However, a direction was made to the effect that the matter shall be heard in accordance with law. 32. It may be of utmost importance at this stage to refer to the various orders, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, while hearing the case remanded to the Court till the aforesaid Court pass the final order. 33. A perusal of the first order dated 08.08.2022, it is seen that as the case record was not in the custody of the aforesaid Court, a direction was given to the DC/ADC, Basar, to transfer the entire case record/file, wherein the impugned order no. BSR/LK-176/13-14/Vol-III dated 02.06.2014 and another impugned order no. 33. A perusal of the first order dated 08.08.2022, it is seen that as the case record was not in the custody of the aforesaid Court, a direction was given to the DC/ADC, Basar, to transfer the entire case record/file, wherein the impugned order no. BSR/LK-176/13-14/Vol-III dated 02.06.2014 and another impugned order no. BSR/LK-176/2017-18/11-215 dated 11.03.2020 were passed by the learned ADC, Basar, to the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Basar. 34. As per the order dated 23.09.2022, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, it is seen that the aforesaid case record/file was received by the Court and accordingly, after perusal of the case record, the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, has recorded the following: - “The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Basar, Leparada District, A.P. vide his forwarding letter dated 07.09.2022 has apprised the Court that on verification, the original copies of letters/orders, which are tagged with yellow flags page No. 205, 204, 139, 23 and 13 are not available in his office and as per record in his office, during dispatch of letters, dispatch branch might have served the original copies of letters/orders to other person which cannot be called back. It is also stated in the same forwarding letter dated 07.09.2022 that the above xerox copies of letters/orders may be treated as original.” 35. Another important order which was passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, was that of 26.05.2023. During the hearing of the matter on that day, both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, disputed the sketch map of the disputed land drawn by the then J. Diyum, Mondal & countersigned by H. Diyum, EAC, Basar, which is found at Page 113 of the case record as the same was not acceptable to the parties, the aforesaid Court directed that the land in dispute should once again be surveyed by the competent officials of land branch/department, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Basar, Leparada District, A.P. in presence of both the parties personally in the interest of fair adjudication of the issues in the appeal. 36. 36. The aforesaid Court, further directed that after re-survey of the entire area of disputed land in sq meters, clear and conspicuous boundary features including name(s) of owner(s) of immediate neighbour(s) and portion of area claimed by each party out of total disputed land, if any, shall be specifically mentioned in the sketch map to be drawn and signed by the aforesaid surveying official/S.K. or equivalent in rank which shall further be counter sealed and signed by the DLR & SO, Leparada District, Basar. 37. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 26.05.2023 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, a report dated 08.06.2023 along with a sketch map was submitted to the Court, which was signed by the EAC (LM) for Deputy Commissioner, Leparada District, Basar. This can be seen from the order dated 28.06.2023, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar. It is also seen from the order dated 28.06.2023, passed by the aforesaid Court that both the parties have submitted that they have no issue with the survey report of the disputed land dated 08.06.2023. On that day, it was directed by the Addl. District Judge, Basar, to both the parties that both the parties shall file their respective written argument, at least, highlighting the vital points favoring their submissions and prayers on or before next date of hearing. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 09.08.2024 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, wherein the counsels for both the parties were present. On that day, after hearing the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, passed the impugned order dated 09.08.2024, the relevant portion of the aforesaid order is extracted herein below: - “Having heard the parties and admitted position of the case, it is observed that the first Keba decision dated 30.04.1997 had attained its finality as none of the parties preferred appeal against the said Keba decision, however, it was not executed and both the parties admitted the fact that only during the cultivation time dispute arises from time to time. It is also admitted that whoever, cultivate first, the other make a complaint and most of the time, Sh. Jumli Basar cultivated the land. It is also admitted that whoever, cultivate first, the other make a complaint and most of the time, Sh. Jumli Basar cultivated the land. Therefore, the disputing point is only in respect of plot No. 3 as to whether plot No. 3 was in possession of Nyajum Basar or in possession of Nyado Basar at the time of first Keba decision in 1997. Considering the fact that both the parties are by blood relatives and indigenous of Arunachal Pradesh belongs from Galo Community, I am inclined to apply the inherent power of this Court in the interest of the justice to both the parties for permanent solution of the case as appears on the case records as well as admitted fact as recorded by this Court with a direction to make the disputed plot no. 3 shown in the map to make at 50-50 ratio and to demarcate it permanently by installing a permanent pillar to be erected as a boundary which shall be executed by the DC, Leparada or SDO headquarter with the help of DLRSO with the further condition that the other condition laid down in first Keba decision shall stand vacated as it is not executed till date. And condition in Keba decision that Sh. Nyado Basar shall not transferred the property to any other person, if any, shall be vacated as it is a void condition. The undisputed plot no. 4 which is in possession of the Sh. Nyado Basar and the undisputed plot no. 2 under possession of Shir Juli Basar shall be continuously in their respective possession forever. It is also directed that Sh. Nyado Basar shall opted the first 50% of the said divided land as he had developed the land first upon the disputed land.” 38. This Court has carefully gone through the proceeding that was conducted before the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar. From the aforesaid proceeding, it is clear that though the parties were present during the proceeding, the parties have never raised any objection to the way/method the proceeding was conducted. It is also seen that from the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, that the file which was received from the office of the ADC, Basar, did not contain many of the documents in original, though the copies were available. 39. It is also seen that the learned Addl. It is also seen that from the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, that the file which was received from the office of the ADC, Basar, did not contain many of the documents in original, though the copies were available. 39. It is also seen that the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, directed for a report from the concerned authorities as mentioned above, and a report was submitted along with a sketch map wherein, the disputed as well as undisputed land was shown. Though the parties had agreed or did not raise any question to the aforesaid report as well as the sketch map, there was no record that is found by this Court that the parties have ever agreed to divide the disputed land in 50:50 ratio and in fact, that is the reason why one of the aggrieved parties have approached this Court by filing this instant petition. 40. From the above discussion and the case laws that have been discussed herein above, it is settled that while deciding the case arising out of a customary Court, the spirit of principles of CPC, 1908, has to be applied to. An appeal from the customary court is continuance of the original case and therefore, it cannot be heard without applying the principles laid down in the CPC, 1908. It is seen from the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 that the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, had mentioned that looking into the peculiar facts of the case prevailing, the Court by taking into account the inherent power of the Court and in the interest of justice of both the parties decided to divide the disputed land in 50:50 ratio as a permanent solution to the case, whereby, the Court has actually decided the rights and liabilities of the parties finally. 41. It is seen that the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, has passed the order without delving much into the materials available before the Court without going into the merit of the matter, the Court has exercised it’s inherent power under the provisions of Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, to bring the matter to a finality. As mentioned above, there was no opportunity given to the parties to prove the materials available before the Court by way of exhibiting the documents or producing originals to verify the materials on record. As mentioned above, there was no opportunity given to the parties to prove the materials available before the Court by way of exhibiting the documents or producing originals to verify the materials on record. No statements of witnesses were recorded during the proceeding. 42. The inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC is to be sparingly used and these are powers generally given to the Courts under the CPC, in addition to those which are expressly provided by the Code. The CPC is a civil procedural law and provides for procedures to be adopted by the civil courts to administer justice between the parties. However, it may not be always possible by any enactment of law or act to provide all the provisions for all emergent situations. Therefore, some complementary powers are conferred on the Courts to deal with the emergent situation of particular nature and in that peculiar situation, the Court, for administering justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, inherent powers can be exercised. However, these powers can be exercised ex debito justitiae in absence of expressed provision in the CPC. Inherent powers, under Section 151 CPC may be exercised ex debito justitiae, in those cases where there is no expressed provision in the Code. 43. The learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, undoubtedly being a civil court while hearing the matter arising out of a customary court, is mandated to hear the matter as per the spirit and principles laid down under the CPC, 1908, which provides a detailed proceeding to be adopted in disposal of a case of civil nature. In the instant case, though there was an option of conducting the trial de-novo, the Court has decided to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, 1908. 44. As discussed above, the Court of Addl. District Judge, Basar, had the option of hearing the matter on the basis of the materials available on record or to start a de- novo proceeding, as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the APCC, 2021. 44. As discussed above, the Court of Addl. District Judge, Basar, had the option of hearing the matter on the basis of the materials available on record or to start a de- novo proceeding, as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the APCC, 2021. In that regard, there was no reason provided in the impugned order dated 09.08.2024, as to why the aforesaid Court, in spite of the provisions mandated in the aforesaid sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the APCC, 2021, has decided to exercise it’s jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties in dispute, finally. 45. This Court, after perusing the materials brought before this Court, hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties as well as on the basis of various precedents cited above, and taking into account the facts in entirety, is of the considered opinion that the instant case merits setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 09.08.2024. 46. Taking into account the fact that various documents, in original, are not available in the records of the case, as mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2022, passed by the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, deems it fit that justice will be done if the case is remanded to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Basar, to hear the case afresh. The learned Additional District Judge shall decide as to whether the Court is going to hear the appeal de novo or on the basis of the materials available before it citing reasons. Thereafter, the Additional District Judge shall proceed to hear the appeal. 47. With the aforesaid observation, this Court remands the case to the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Basar, to hear the matter afresh as per the principles laid down under the CPC, 1908, and the same is to be done within a period of 6(six) months from the date of passing of this order. 48. The instant civil revision petition, accordingly, stands disposed of with the above observation.