AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S. Wahlang, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Sunar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The Petitioner has come before this Hon''ble Court being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment/Order dated 30th November, 2015 (Anx-VII)
passed by the Lower Appellate Court (Judge), District Council Court arising out of Title Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014 filed by the Respondents.
This impugned Judgment has got the effect of disposing the suit.
It is pertinent to mention that this Hon''ble High Court vide Judgment/Order dated 31st January, 2014 (Anx-V) had set aside the previous
Judgment/Order of the Lower Appellate Court, District council Court due to material defects/irregularity and remitted back to Lower Appellate
Court, to take procedure as per Order 41 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C).
Thereafter, the Respondents filed a fresh Title Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014 before the Lower Appellate Court, appended new documents which
never produced nor exhibited in the Lower Court (Additional Subordinate District Council Court) Khyrim Syiemship. Further, the Lower
Appellate Court, inter alia at the time of exercising its jurisdiction with material irregularity by admitting new documents/evidences without giving
opportunity to the Petitioner to rebut the same and without examining the witnesses which is against the provisions of the Law. (documents page
224 to 228 of the instant revision petition).
The Petitioner, humbly submits before this Hon''ble High Court to uphold the Judgment/Order dated 5th August, 2005 (Anx-III) passed by the
Lower Court (Additional Subordinate District Council Court), Khyrim Syiemship, which is in consonance with the Administration of Justice Rules
1953 as amended. Hence this revision petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent without giving opportunity to the petitioner brought some new documents in
the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, District Council Court which is at Page 224-A to 228-A and these documents were never
produced before the Trial Court (Additional Subordinate District Council Court) Khyrim Syiemship.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the new documents might have been filed before the Lower Appellate
Court, District Council Court but the Trial Court (Additional Subordinate District Council Court) Khyrim Syiemship has not taken any cognizance
as understood from the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2015 passed in Title Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014 (Title Civil Appeal No. 5 of
2005).
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I made it clear that, whether cognizance has been taken or not?
The respondent has no right or authority to bring any new documents in the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, District Council Court
without the leave of the Court and without the knowledge of the other side. Since, in this case, Page 224-A to 228-A were not before the Trial
Court, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court did not get an opportunity to appreciate those documents; and thereby debarred the Court to
adjudicate the matter in a proper context. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2015 passed in Title Civil Appeal. No. 1 of
2014 (Title Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2005) annexed as Annexure-VII of the writ petition is hereby set aside and the Lower Appellate Court, District
Council Court after hearing both the parties is directed to give equal opportunities to pass an appropriate order whether the appeal to be allowed
or to be remand back to the Trial Court to complete the exercise within 4(four) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and
order.
The Registry is directed to return the Lower Court case record along with a copy of this judgment and order.
With this observation and direction the civil revision petition stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.