PRISKA SUN Vs. CHRISTABELL RYNGDONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No 1 (since deceased) in the year 1990 as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 6 of 1992 before the Sub-ordinate District Council Court for eviction and other reliefs against the petitioner herein and her deceased husband. Her husband was arrayed as defendant No. 1 and the petitioner as defendant No.2. The Suit was contested by the husband of the petitioner1 and written statements were filed. During pendency of the Title Suit, the husband of the petitioner expired and the suit continued for trial.

(2.) The trial court thereafter by judgment and Order dated 13.07.2011 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent No. 1. As such being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 13.07.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, District Council Court; the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Judge, District Council Court. However, on presentation of the appeal, the Judge, District Council Court namely Shri S. Kharsyiemlieh returned the memorandum of appeal of the petitioner with the following observations:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that return of the memorandum of appeal of the petitioner herein was illegal and unwarranted in law, inasmuch as, though the said Court may be disabled from hearing the appeal, the same should have been accepted and kept in abeyance till such Court is available to take up the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Execution case, being Execution case No. 1 of 2014 arising out of the said Title Suit has also been filed by the respondents against which an application under Order 21 Rule 26 C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for stay of the Execution. The Executing Court, by order dated 02.09.2016, stayed the execution proceedings for two months, but the same is continuing till date. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits since the Judgment and Decree has been passed by Shri. E. Myrten who is the Additional Judge, but as he is also disabled from taking up the appeal, he prays that firstly, the Memorandum of Appeal be restored to file, and secondly, that the Appeal be transferred to any other court of competent jurisdiction for disposal.