SHILLONG, India, April 26 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on March 25:
1. The legality and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2025 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 1 of 2024 by the Judge, District Council Court, Khasi Hills, Shillong is the subject matter of challenge in this instant Revision Petition.
2. Heard Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. C. Nongkhlaw, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The relevant fact necessary for adjudication of this matter is that pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2023 passed in WA No. 5 of 2023, the petitioner herein instituted Title Suit No. 30 of 2023 before the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong for declaration of right, title, interest, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of a property known as Madan Iewrynghep. The said title suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908( in short CPC) for grant of ad-interim/temporary injunction registered as Misc Case No.77 of 2023. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties, at the interim, vide order dated 09.11.2023 while directing maintenance of status quo by both the parties, passed certain other directions. It appears that none of the parties made any immediate challenge to the said order dated 09.11.2023. The petitioner, thereafter, filed three applications alleging disobedience of the interim order, whereupon, the Trial Court passed two orders on 04.03.2024 and 26.03.2024 ordering strict compliance of the interim order. It is only after that, the respondents herein filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1 of 2024 before the Judge, District Council Court, challenging the order dated 09.11.2023 under Rule 31 (2) of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. The petitioner questioned the maintainability of the civil revision petition before the District Council Court by filing an application. The learned Judge, District Council Court, after hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 rejected the plea of maintainability and proceeded to decide the civil revision petition on merits against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this Court.
4. Assailing the impugned order dated 14.11.2025, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge, District Council Court has travelled beyond his jurisdiction to entertain the civil revision petition filed by the respondent. According to him, Rule 31 (2) of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 does not confer any revisional jurisdiction on the District Council Court in civil matters. He submits that the above rule confers revisional jurisdiction on the District Council Court only in criminal matters. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Judge, District Council Court has erred in deciding the entire matter on merits while dealing only with the question of maintainability as no hearing was conducted touching the factual aspect of the case.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x7t4ZS8J89%2Bn6ymWTJ5w6TjCPR81feH6vQ4vmvswQCUS&caseno=CRP/29/2025&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010018132025&state_code=21&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
