HENKHOLAM KUKI Vs. KADAPTI TANGKHUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has weathered 16 summers and the sun is still shining on it. Indeed it epitomises a classic example of limitation of the justicing process as also of frustration of the legislative will. As far back as in 1968, a preliminary order was passed in this case under S. 145(1), Cr. P.C. The proceeding so initiated has still to see the end of the day. Parties fought several bouts of the litigation in this Court, in the Sessions Court as well as the trial Court during the course of the 16 years. It is anybody's guess, why they overlooked the wholesome legislative mandate that orders passed in the course of proceeding under S.145, Cr. P.C. have a limited finality. Indeed, none cared to go to the Civil Court as fortunes fluctuated in the course of this long period. Everyone pinned hope on it to ee final success in this proceeding itself.

(2.) Be that as it may, I mint consider the submission made before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners who has very forcefully and ably presented the case pleading my interference with the orders passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, on 24-11-1979, whereby trial Courts order declaring possession of the party in the disputed land was set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not, however, remain content with that. In doing so he proceeded further to decide the question of possession on merit and declared first party to be in possession of the disputed land on 15-2-1969, the date of amended preliminary order. He directed the parties further to establish their claim before the Civil Court in respect of the paddy seized before the amended preliminary order was passed on 15-2-1969.

(3.) The first submission of Mr. Priyananda Singh does, indeed, assail jurisdictional competence of the Court below to pass the impugned order. According to learned counsel revisional Court ought to have remitted the matter to the trial Court instead of embarking on the hazardous exercise of dealing with the question of possession on merit. Indeed, this objection was also raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and he had rightly, in my opinion, rejected it. The case had been dragged on for more than 11 years and for the ends of justice he considered that it will be futile to remit the matter once again if cause of justice has to be upheld. The law on this point, as stated succinctly by this Court in Smt. Akan Bala Kalita's case, (1984) 1Gauhati LR (NOC) 10, is that revisional Court does not generally interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the trial Court while acting under S. 401, Cr. P.C, but the jurisdiction of the Court thereunder being discretionary it cannot returns to go into facts where it appears to it that there has been, in the case, a gross failure of justice. So, it was held. It was further observed that if the findings touch any jurisdictional requirement and if the Court ignores relevant facts having a bearing on such a requirement or takes into consideration irrelevant facts, such a finding is not binding on a revisional Court so as to deprive it of the power to correct the jurisdictional failure. S. 401 invests Courts with powers and jurisdiction exercisable by the original Court in a case where the Code does not provide for an appeal as it can act in the same manner such cases as the Court as the of Appeal does to prevent a jurisdictional failure resulting in justice being denied to any party. This result can be achieved if discretion is exercised in the manner by which the Court is enabled to interfere even on facts in appropriate cases so that it is not deprived of a jurisdiction which would be co-extensive with that of the trial Court in the matter of granting relief.