U. STOLING NONGLANG Vs. KA KLIN LYNGDOH UMIONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 20-4-1972 passed by Mr. B.R. Laso, Judge, District Council Court, United Khasi Jaintia Hills, Shillong in Misc. Appeal No.11 of 1971 wherein the learned Judge has allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Court and non-suited the plaintiffs-appellants.

(2.) THE appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit being Political Case No. 27 of 1968 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate District Council Court of Maharam Syiemship against five named defendants and 33 others but not named specifically in the plaint. The suit was for cancellation of the sale deed dated Aug. 27, 1965 executed in favour Of the five named defendants by some members of their Nonglang clan in violation of the customary law, without any knowledge and consent of the Kur elders. The plaintiff asked for relief besides cancellation of the sale deed, a decree against the sellers to return the consideration to defendants 1 to 5 and for declaration that the suit land Mawkhyllung Rombah should remain with the owners Of Khyndew Ri Khain of the Sawkpoh (four stocks) of Nonglang clan. The defendants appeared and contested the suit. During trial the plaintiffs examined witnesses and thereafter prayed for summoning the 33 persons arrayed as defendants (but not named) for examination. They were summoned by the Court and examined as witnesses. Thereafter the defendants (named) adduced evidence and the case of the parties closed. Upon hearing the parties the trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal the Judge District Council Court held that (1) non-framing of issues prejudiced the defendants and the trial was vitiated on that count; (2) the trial Court had committed error in summoning the 33 persons and examining them after the plaintiffs had examined their witnesses. The learned Judge, on these grounds, not only reversed the decree but non-suited the plaintiffs. It directed the plaintiffs to "file a proper suit, if so advised".

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that settlement and determination of issues, whether on law or fact, are inconsequential in so far as the courts governed by the United Khasi and Jaintia Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 are concerned, as the Courts are not governed by the provisions Of the Civil Procedure Code but are guided by the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Issues need be framed in civil actions under Order 14 Of the Code which are inapplicable in trial by the Courts. Contentious proceedings require determination of the points, deduced from the pleadings of the parties, which are affirmed on the one side and denied on the other. Issues are disputed points or questions to which the parties in an action have narrowed their several allegations, and upon which they are desirous of obtaining the decision of the proper tribunal. The formulation of the points or the issues have their origin from time immemorial and all Courts and Tribunals covered by the norms of justice or "the known principles of law", settle issues and determine the disputes on the basis of the issues. It is essential in all adversary system of trial where parties are called upon to produce their evidence. In criminal trials charges are framed to give adequate information of the case appearing against the accused. Framing of issues help the parties to know the disputed points and to adduce evidence in support or against the issues. Parties have rights to lead evidence on the issues. All material documents or oral evidence which travel beyond the issues are superfluous or what is styled as "irrelevant". Issues help Courts to decide the precise questions required to be determined. When issues are framed civil court cannot go beyond them and formulate a new case for the parties. These are the main reasons why framing of issues are essential in civil action. This rule is of universal application in all Trails or proceedings where evidence need be recorded. It is heartening to note that the Rules compacted in Order 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, which are of universal application and beneficial provisions for just decision of suits, have been adopted by the learned Judge. It is the right stance taken by the learned Judge and no objection can be allowed to be taken when the learned Judge has adopted the right principles to uphold the cause of justice. In my opinion all Rules contained in procedural laws need be applied in trial of suits or cases by the Courts governed by the Rules of the Administration of Justice, which are beneficial in nature and bear up the cause of justice. The principles of law, which are of universal application and those rules which accord with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience should be applicable in trials by the Courts concerned. In my opinion the learned Judge was absolutely justified in holding that failure to frame issues resulted in a failure of justice. In the result, the first contention is turned down.