NEILOULHOU G B Vs. KHRIELHOULIE AND PARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. R. Iralu, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) MR . C. T. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by an order dated 16. 12. 2008 passed by the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner in Civil Appeal No. 2/08 the instant petitioner as appellant filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) Kohima, under Rule 29 of the rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland 1984, as amended, which was registered and numbered as Civil Appeal No. 1/09. The respondent filed an affidavit and raised objection that the aforesaid appeal is not maintainable under Rule 29 of the rules stating that the impugned order in the aforesaid appeal is not an original order, and as such, appeal does not lie to the Deputy Commissioner. The case was heard only on question of maintainability under Rule 29 of the rules and not on the merit of the appeal and the learned Court below mis-interpreting the rules came to a conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable under Rule 29 of the rules and by an order dated 03. 06. 2009, the learned Court below illegally dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 1/09.

(3.) MR . C. T. Jamir, the learned counsel for the revisionist further states that Rule 29 of the rules is in two parts. The first part of the Rule 29 is; an appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner against the decision of any of his Assistant. The second part of the Rule 29 is, to the High Court against the original decision of the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, when an order is passed by the Court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, than in the first part of Rule 29 of the rules, an appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner. The second part of the Rule 29 of the rules is that, to the High Court against the original decision of the Deputy Commissioner. The case of the petitioner/revisionist falls under the first part of Rule 29 (1) of the rules since the appeal is against the order of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner. The case of the petitioner/revisionist does not in any manner falls under the second part of Rule 29 of the rules which deals with an original decision of the Deputy Commissioner.