KOHIM A BENCH ZANTHUNGO KITHAN Vs. NCHUMBEMO TUNGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. E.Y. Renthungo, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Iralu, learned counsel for the respondents. A very unprecedented situation has arisen in this case. As such I am not hearing the case on merit as I cannot do so. I may give my reasons as follows :- The matter concerns dispute of a plot of land located near the Town of Wokha in the District of Wokha. The dispute concerning this plot of land was first decided by D.B.s Court. Being aggrieved this appellant preferred an appeal before the learned A.D.C. (Judicial). The learned A.D.C. (Judicial) was pleased to set aside the decision of D.B.s Court dated 2/ 6/88 and a denovo trial was ordered by his order dated 17.12.88. Subsequently four issues were framed. They are :- (1) Whether the appellant is the absolute owner of the suit land in question? (2) Whether the land in question is an ancestral property of the appellant/ defendant family ? (3) Whether the respondent purchased the said field in question from late Nyamo Murry of Wokha village in 1946? (4) Whether the respondent has been in possession of the said field since then and whether the respondent has been cultivating the said field till 1987 ?

(2.) Both the parties adduced evidence. The appellant examined three witnesses including himself. The respondent examined as many as nine witnesses including himself. After hearing the parties the learned A.D.C. (Judicial) passed the impugned order on 30th August, 1993 in Appeal No. 30/88. We have gone through the impugned order. In the entire impugned order not one of the four issues has been dealt with. Order 14 Rule 2 (1) of C.P.C. states :-

(3.) The parties to the suit in the Court below were defended by members of the bar. Not even a mention is made as to whether lawyers appeared before the Court at all. The learned Court was pleased not even to note the presence of lawyers who Defended the parties. The learned A.D.C. (Judicial) also visited the disputed area with some persons who are acquainted with the boundary and the disputed area. Although such visit/ inspection is reflected in the impugned order, no Mamo of his visit is available in the judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in fact the learned Court had only solicited some informations from some persons whom the Court had summoned, and that the appellant was not even allowed to be present when those witnesses were examined by the learned A.D.C. (Judicial), Let me not express any opinion regarding the truth of this statement made at the bar. However, it appears at the spot verification both the parties were not present inasmuch as no such statement has been reflected in (he order itself. Everything that is done by a Court of law should be done openly and in a very transparent manner. It is absolutely essential that spot verification should also be done in the presence of the parties.. It must be clearly staled that such spot verification has to be done only in the presence of the parties. Order 18 Rule 18 of C.P.C. is regarding the power of Court to inspect. It reads :-