TEMJENKABA Vs. IMYACHANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Rules for the Administration of Justice in Nagaland, for short 'the Rules' is projected against the order passed by Mr. A. Sanmugam. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung confirming the order passed by Mr. R. S. Bedi. Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner at Mokokchung. The present appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner and also presented an application for adducing further evidence or 'additional evidence' in the appeal. The Appellate Court issued notices to the respondent -opposite parties. He dismissed the appeal in limine by the impugned order holding that the appeal was presented beyond the period of 30 days prescribed under Rule 34 of 'the Rules' and, therefore, the appeal was barred bv limitation. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner also held that the appeal was incompetent as it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment appealed against. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner also rejected the prayer of the appellants for adducing 'additional evidence'.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate General. Nagaland, appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Advocate -General has made a three pronged attack on the impugned judgment. The first contention is that the order of rejection of the application for adducing additional evidence was bad as no cogent reason for rejection was assigned by the learned Deputy Commissioner. At any rate, the order was without jurisdiction as he had no jurisdiction to go into the merit of the application once he held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Secondly, the counsel contends that the appeal was palpably presented within the period of 30 days from the date of the decision and the learned Addl. Dy. Commissioner committed a fatal error of law apparent on the face of the records in concluding that the appeal had been filed beyond 30 days from the date of the decision and he points to the records to substantiate his submissions. The third contention is that a true copy of the judgment was filed along with the memo of appeal and in due course 'the certified copy' was filed and the same was also before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner on the date of the final determination of the appeal, as such: the appeal was filed in conformity with the provisions of Rule 34 of 'the Rules'.

(3.) IN so far as the second contention is concerned we are constrained to hold that the appellate court went wrong in assuming that the appeal was presented beyond 30 days. The impugned judgment was rendered on 18 -10 -1977 and the appeal was presented before the appellate court on 15 -11 -1977, vide pase 10 of the Memo of Appeal, wherein the date of receipt of the Memo has been clearly recorded as 15 -11 -1977. As such, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the appeal was filed on 15 -11 -1977, and, as such presented within the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 34 of 'the Rules'. The appellate court was wrong in assuming that the appeal was presented on 28 -11 -1977. This finding is not borne out from the records of the case. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the holding of the Appellate Court that the appeal was filed beyond 30 days was an error of record. In consequence of the error, the appeal was not disposed on merit, and, the appellant was thrown out of court which has resulted in a failure of justice. In the result the finding of the court that the appeal was barred by limitation must be set aside.