Allowed

Dana Pertin v. Baity Jamoh and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Aug 2022CRP/16/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing execution of a Kebang decision. The court held that the petition was filed under the wrong provision and disposed of the matter by setting aside the impugned order and directing parties to the village authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and parties directed to approach Mirku village authority within two weeks.

Dana Pertin Vs Baity Jamoh and 4 Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040004932022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP 16/2022

¶5

1:Dana Pertin S/o Late B Pertin,

¶6

A resident of Bus Stand Pasighat, PO and PS Pasighat, District East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:Baity Jamoh and 4 Ors. S/o Late Aran Jamoh, Village Mirku, PO and PS Pasighat, District East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶9

2:Obuk Jamoh S/o Late Aran Jamoh Village Mirku PO and PS Pasighat District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

¶10

3:Ojing Jamoh S/o Late Aran Jamoh

¶11

Village Mirku PO and PS Pasighat District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh.

¶12

4:Onong Jamoh S/o Late Aran Jamoh

¶13

Village Mirku PO and PS Pasighat

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh 5:Ogom Jamoh S/o Late Aran Jamoh

¶16

Village Mirku PO and PS Pasighat District East Siang Arunachal Pradesh

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : Karyom Dabi

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : Rinchin Ledo Thungon

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 02.08.2022

¶23

Heard Ms. T. Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. H. K. Jamoh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

¶24

Office Note dated 01.08.2020, indicates that service report in respect of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are still awaited. However, Mr. Jamoh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 submits that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 never contested the Case before the learned Deputy Commissioner and they have been arrayed as a proforma respondents here in this petition and without hearing then, this petition can be disposed of.

¶25

Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of the petition in absence of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

¶26

This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. read with

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration & Justice) Regulation against the order dated 07.04.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, East Siang District in I.A No. 04/2021 in execution Case No. 02/2012. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order the learned Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat allowed execution of Kebang decision dated 19.05.2004.

¶29

Ms. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents namely, Shri Baity Jamoh, Shri Obuk Jamoh and Shri Ojing Jamoh have filed an application under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) regulation 1945, read with Section 51 and order 21 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the Kebang decision dated 19.05.2004, and that the said Kebang decision already attained finality and for the execution of the said decision the petitioners filed the application under Section 53 of Assam Frontier Regulation (Administration and Justice) 1945. It is further, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, before whom the application has been filed had no jurisdiction to entertained such a petition for execution of the decree passed by the village authority dated 19.05.2004, and therefore, the impugned order dated 07.04.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat suffers from manifest illegality and therefore, it is contended to set aside.

¶30

Mr. H. K. Jamoh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 also fairly conceded to the submission so advanced by Ms. T. Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner ought to have been filed under Section 45(1) of the Assam Frontier Regulation (Administration & Justice), but, instead of filing the petition under said provision of law, the petitioners have approached the Deputy Commissioner under Section 53 of the Assam Frontier Regulation (Administration & Justice) under the wrong advice of

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

their counsel and as such this Revision Petition can be can be disposed of by setting aside impugned order and directing the parties to approach the appropriate forum i.e., (Mirku village authority) as per Section of the 45(1) of the Assam Frontier Regulation (Administration & Justice).

¶33

In view of above, and as agreed by the parties this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and directing the parties to approach the appropriate forum i.e., Mirku village authority, the parties are directed to appear before the village authority within 2 (two) weeks from today.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Dana Pertin v. Baity Jamoh and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dana Pertin v. Baity Jamoh and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ranjan Kumar Singh Vs Shri Ego Riba

Rinku Moni Gogoi Vs the State of Ap

Nongki Perme Vs the State of Ap

Techi Kak Vs Bijay Biswas @ Dengu and 2 Ors.

Munu Sharma Vs the State of Ap

Minoti Das Vs the State of Ap