Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 914 (GAU)

Chitta Ranjan Chakma v. Snehadini Talukdar

2025-05-29

MARLI VANKUNG

body2025
JUDGMENT : (MARLI VANKUNG, J.) Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This is an appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Judicial Officer, District Council Court, Chakma Autonomous District Council, Kamalanagar in Case No. 26/2020, wherein, the learned Trial Court had passed the judgment and order against the appellant and wherein the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, CADC was directed to cancel the pass of the appellant and issue him a new pass. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that the respondent as the plaintiff had instituted the Case No. 26/2020 before the District Council Court, CADC, Kamalanagar by stating that in the year 1998 the appellant’s son-in-law, who was working as LDC in the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, CADC had illegally increased the landed portion of the LSC Pass No. 8/88 belonging to the appellant from 24 ft to 30 ft. It was alleged that the appellant who was arrayed as defendant No. 1, had encroached upon the land of the respondent/plaintiff covered under LSC Pass No. 8/88. The learned Trial Court by taking cognizance of the petition had issued an interim order dated 13.10.2020, directing the appellant to stop any kind of construction on the disputed land covered under the said LSC Pass No. 8/88 located at Kamalanagar–I. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court allowed both the parties to adduce their evidences and also call for the original record registered under Kamalanagar–I from the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, CADC in order to verify the land plots of the parties. The learned Trial Court had also called for the detailed reports of the land plots of the petitioner from the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, CADC, wherein the report was submitted on 23.10.2021. The learned Trial Court by relying on the report submitted and the evidence adduced by both the parties had passed the impugned Judgment dated 21.10.2021. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 4. Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside since no issues were framed by the learned Trial Court, as mandated under Order XIV Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 4. Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside since no issues were framed by the learned Trial Court, as mandated under Order XIV Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the Mizoram Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2007 had amended Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 wherein, it was held that the Court of Civil Procedure, 1908 should be followed in spirit in all the Civil Courts. The learned counsel submits that even though the Code of Civil Procedure is to be followed in spirit, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in its Order dated 07.09.2017, in the case Mr. Vanlalruala Vs. H.S. Ronghaka in RFA No. 11/2017 , had disposed of the appeal by observing that no issues or preliminary issues had been framed by the learned Trial Court and had accordingly remanded back the case to the Trial Court for framing of issues. The learned counsel thus submitted that since in the present appeal, it is seen that no preliminary issues were framed by the learned Trial Court, the matter may also be remanded back to the learned Trial Court and framing issues on the facts and law involved in the Case No. 26/2020. 5. Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable in the Autonomous District Council areas only in spirit and is not to be applied in letters as per Rule 41 of The Pawi-Lakher Autonomous region (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1954. He however conceded that since the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mr. H. Vanlalhruaia Vs. H.S. Ronghaka in RFA No. 11/2017 (Supra) had referred the matter back to the Trial Court for framing of issues, the same may also be done in the instant case since no issues were framed by the learned Trial Court without going into the merits of the case. 6. H. Vanlalhruaia Vs. H.S. Ronghaka in RFA No. 11/2017 (Supra) had referred the matter back to the Trial Court for framing of issues, the same may also be done in the instant case since no issues were framed by the learned Trial Court without going into the merits of the case. 6. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, it is seen that as per 41 of The Pawi-Lakher Autonomous region (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1954 “Regional Council Court shall be guided by the spirit, but not bound by the letter, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in all matters, not covered by recognized customary laws or usages of the Region”. It is thus seen that the instant matter is not covered by any customary law or usages of the Region. Thus the Regional Council Court are to be guided by the spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, this court finds, is to ensure fairness, certainty and consistency in the procedure adopted by the Regional Council Court especially when the parties are represented by their legal counsels. 7. It is also seen that that Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 was amended by the Mizoram Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2007 in the following manner: “Sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Principal Act shall be substituted as follows: (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the procedures prescribed in the Code shall, save in so far as is otherwise provided by this Act, be followed in spirit in all the Civil Courts.” Thus it is seen that the Court of Civil Procedure, 1908 is followed in spirit in all the Civil Courts. 8. However, it is also noted that the Co-ordinate of this Court in Mr. H. Vanlalhruaia Vs. H.S. Ronghaka in RFA No. 11/2017 had observed as follows: "8. In the case of AKhil Ch. 8. However, it is also noted that the Co-ordinate of this Court in Mr. H. Vanlalhruaia Vs. H.S. Ronghaka in RFA No. 11/2017 had observed as follows: "8. In the case of AKhil Ch. Dutta (Supra) , this Court has held that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue as laid down under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, and if the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law relating to:- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being enforced by postponing the settlement of the other issue until after that issue of law has been determined. 9. In the case of Supreme Enterprise (M/S) v. ACE 3 Marketing (M/S) & Others , reported in 2011 (1) GLT 133 , this Court has held in para 11 as follows: ‘11. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the considered opinion that unless all issues including preliminary issue is framed in terms of Order 14, Rule 1 after filing and reception of the pleadings of the respective parties, the same being mandatory, a preliminary issue cannot be framed separately but once a preliminary issue has been framed along with other issues then the Court is under an obligation to decide the preliminary issue first and if upon decision on the preliminary issue the suit can be decided finally then settlement of other issues can be postponed. If the Court considers that mere decision on preliminary issue would not finally determine the suit then the Court can go for pronouncement of judgment on all issues." Accordingly, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had remanded the case back to the Trial Court for framing of issues and for disposal of the same after recording of evidence in terms of Order XIV CPC. 9. 9. In view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 11/2017 and considering the fact that no objection is raised by the learned counsel for the respondent for remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for framing of the issues, this Court find it fit to remand the matter back to the learned Trial Court with a direction that the learned Trial Court should first frame issues, by conforming to the spirit of Order XIV Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, on the facts and law involved in the said case and thereafter pronounce a judgment on all the issues framed by conforming to the spirit of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, to ensure that there is fairness, certainty, predictability and consistency in the procedure adopted by the court in the interest of justice. The parties may adduce further evidence if found appropriate by the learned Trial Court. 10. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Judicial Officer, District Council Court, Chakma Autonomous District Council, Kamalanagar in Case No. 26/2020 is set aside and both the parties are to appear before the learned Trial Court on 24.06.2025 for further steps. 11. RFA No. 3/2022 stands allowed and disposed of as above. 12. TCR to be returned.