VIMEDE ANGAMI Vs. ZIEKRUE-O ANGAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under the Rules for the Administration of Justice which involves several substantial questions of law.

(2.) THE petitioners claim that the water course of the river flowing: by the 'paddy fields of the petitioners and those of the opposite parties was interfered with by the opposite parties to the detriment of the petitioners. A dispute was lodged with the Gaonburahs P. Khel of Kohima village. The Gaonburhas did not decide the case of the parties in any form whatsoever. What they did was to prohibit both the villagers not to interfere with the natural flow of the river and forbade the parties to take any action which might endanger or damage the paddy fields of the parties. Shortly, put, the Gaonburahs maintained "status quo", kept alive the disputations between the villagers and merely passed a prohibitory order restraining: the parties to do certain acts. In view of the non-determination of the rights the inevitable consequences followed. The villagers of the petitioners alleged that the villagers of the opposite parties had violated the order of the Gaonburahs who had decided matter in favour of the petitioners. In consequence of the complaint the opposite parties were fined Rs. 100 and the obstruction put up by them was directed to be removed. Even during: the second round of the disputation, the Gaonburahs did not determine the rights of the parties but merely penalised the opposite parties. Against the imposition of the fine. The opposite parties preferred an appeal to the court of the Dobhasis. The Dobhasis Court also did not decide the rights of the parties. No issue was framed nor did the court determine the right title and interest of the parties. The Dobhasi Court accepted the age old method of oath taking. By this method the parties are asked to take oath on their life or the life of the villager. If any misfortune happens due to natural calamities or otherwise on any of the parties he loses the case although the claim of that party may be just legal and valid. By adopting the procedure the courts do not decide the real rights of the parties but leave them to Almighty. Nagaland has progressed by leaps and bounds, it is one of the most forward States in India, a great leap is evident in the life style of the Nagas advancement is noticeable all around and in every sphere of Naga activities. It is an intriguing question whether the court system constituted under "the Rules" should remain passive to the great march and advancement and instead continue to decide cases not on merit but leave the decision to Nature or to chances. This case is a shining example that old values should give way to new and some of the practices followed so far by the courts governed by the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police require changes. We must seriously consider the advisability of forcing the parties to take oath and leave the ultimate decision to Almighty.

(3.) IN the instant case in the court of the Dobhasis the petitioners refused to take oath for which they were fined Rs. 500.