JOHISH KOCH Vs. MONOTY KOCK @ MINOTY KOCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.G. Momin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the order of the Judicial Officer, Sub-Ordinate District Council Court, Tura, appeal would ordinarily lie to the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, GHADC, Tura. However, he has approached this Court under Rule 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 2014, inasmuch as, he is aggrieved with the fact that though, this Court vide order dated 25.04.2017 passed in CRP. No. 20 of 2015 directed the Ampati Village Court to frame additional issues and hear the matter, the same was not done. Subsequently, the matter had travelled in appeal before the Sub- Ordinate District Council Court, Tura and being aggrieved by the impugned order, which has decided the case in favour of the respondent, has filed the instant revision application.

(3.) On a bare perusal of the revision application, it appears that the order impugned herein has been passed by the Judicial officer, Sub-Ordinate District Council Court, Tura. The GHADC (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 provides a provision under Rule 30 for appeal to the Judge, District Council Court from the decision of the Sub-Ordinate District Court or an Additional Sub-Ordinate District Court in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction, in any case, civil or criminal and the same is quoted herein below: -