BUKCHEM PHOM Vs. SMTI KUMSANGKOKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the petitioner is rasing a solitary issue as regards the jurisdiction of the Court at Kohima to entertain Civil Suit No.3 of 1996.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. V. Theyo, learned counsel and Ms. M Theyo, learned counsel as well as Mr. L. Sharat Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by Mr. G. Suniti Kumar Sharma, learned counsel.

(3.) Brief facts may be narrated. Civil Suit No. 3 of 1996 was instituted by the respondents. At one stage the suit was decided exparte. However, on an application made on behalf of the petitioner saying that he had not received any notice of the institution of the said civil suit, the suit was restored. Written statement was also filed. No issues have been framed so far. It may also be stated that in the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, question of jurisdiction was not specifically raised. A separate petition was submitted before the Court of learned ADC (Judicial), Kohima raising an issue of jurisdiction. The said question was decided by the learned ADC (Judicial) on 5.5.2000. The Court below held that it has jurisdiction to decide the matter. When Notice of Motion was issued on 23.5.2000, the following interim order was passed: "In the mean time further proceeding in Civil Suit No. 3/96 shall remain suspended."