MESWARI Vs. ZEHOTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The bone of contention in this petition is name of the village to which both parties belong. The petitioners contend that the name of their village is KEDIMA, whereas the respondents contend that the name of their village is KIDIMA.

(2.) This is the second time the petitioners have approached this court. Civil Rule 21 (K) 91 was filed by the petitioners in respect of the same dispute and this Court had disposed of the said Civil Rule by order dated 2.7.92. The main contention in the said Civil Rule was that the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner was not sustainable in as much as the dispute was not decided by the learned Deputy Commissioner, but instead the Angami Public Organisation (in short APO), a social set up of the tribe was requested to decide toe dispute. The APO heard the parties and came to a decision that the name of toe village would remain as KIDIMA as contended by the respondents. This decision of the APO was endorsed by the learned Deputy Commissioner. While disposing of the Civil Rule, thus Court was of the view that the matter should be discussed in a cool headed manner among the villagers to find an amicable settlement as regards the name of the village.

(3.) Order dated 8.9.92 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Application No. 6/92 indicates that a meeting was convened on 12-9-92 to decide the dispute over the name of the village .KEDl/KlDl by majority, which is said to be in compliance with the High Courts order dated 2.7.92. It appears, there was some complaint regarding the convening of the said meeting. Hence the learned Deputy Commissioner restrained the holding of the meeting on 12th September, 1992. The said order was passed at: the instance of the respondents which had sought injunction against the petiticners are regards holding of the said meeting.