Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040002262023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/11/2023 Obyat Dai S/o Lt. Tanari Dai, Permanent Resident of Village Yagpo, PO/PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Tamut Tasung S/o Lt. Sula Tasung, Permanent Resident of Village Boying, PO Balek, PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Jumgam Jini,Tao Tarin,A T Tara,Binter Picha,D Loyi,Gamken Bam,O Tatak Advocate for the Respondent : S Taye, Orin Modi,J Pabi Linked Case : CRP/10/2023 Obyat Dai Age: 51 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. Tanari Dai Permanent Resident of Village Yapgo PO/PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/8 VERSUS Tamut Tasung Age: 0 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. Sula Tasung Permanent Resident of Village Boying PO Balek PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : T T Tara Advocate for : S Taye appearing for Tamut Tasung: Advocate appearing for respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 19-06-2025 Heard Mr. Binter Picha, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Taye, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present Civil revision applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the following orders; (i) Kebang Decision dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Head GB, Boying Village; (ii) Communication dated 16.03.2020; (iii) Proceeding of Execution Petition No. 06/2022 before the Deputy Page No.# 3/8 Commissioner, East Siang, Pasighat; (iv) The order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Court of District Judge, East Siang Pasighat in Execution Petition No. 06/2022; (v) Notice dated 14.02.2023 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), East Siang District, Pasighat; and (vi) Seeks direction for reconduct of Kebang proceedings in terms of paragraph 4 of the Ex-parte Kebang decision dated 19.02.2020. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent lodged a complaint before the Customary Court, Boying village for conducting Kebang on the land dispute. The petitioner did not participate in the Kebang proceedings, hence, the Kebang proceeded ex-parte and decided that the respondent family can occupy the part of the land and from the boundary shown by the respondent. However, the Kebang gave a liberty to the petitioner to approach for recalling the Kebang within 15 days is aggrieved with the decision 4. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a complaint against the ex-parte Kebang and requested for quashing of ex-parte Kebang decision dated 19.02.2020. 5. However, the Customary Court, Boying village, by an order dated 16.03.2020 rejected the complaint and stated that he will not change the ex- parte decision dated 19.02.2020, and it will also not reconvene the Kebang. 6. The further case of the petitioner is that in the meantime, the respondent filed an Execution Petition before the Court of learned District Judge, East Page No.# 4/8 Siang, Pasighat registered as Execution Case no. 06/2022. The petitioner submits that the learned District Judge has no authority to execute the Kebang order passed by the Customary Court. However, the learned District Judge, East Siang, Pasighat by an order dated 16.01.2023 has directed the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang, Pasighat to engage one Executing Officer to demarcate the disputed land as per the Kebang decision of the village authority. 7. The petitioner contends that the Customary Court refusal to allow reconduct of trial (re-Kebang) is against the principle of natural justice particularly when the ex-parte order dated 19.02.2020 itself granted liberty for approaching for reconduct of Trial (re-kebang) upon approaching within 15 days, which the petitioner complied with. The rejection has, therefore, resulted in manifest injustice. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is no longer pressing for the prayer no. 1 for setting aside the Kebang decision dated 19.02.2020 for recalling of Kebang. Instead, he prays for allowing the petitioner to file fresh application against the ex-parte Kebang dated 19.02.2020 as his application was wrongly filed in the form of complaint out of ignorance of law and procedure. 9. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; (i) Ramath Exports Private Limited Vs. Vinita Mehta and Another reported in (2022) 7 SCC 678. The relevant paragraph is Page No.# 5/8 reproduced herein below; “15. It is a trite law that the procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording reasonable opportunity. Therefore, in our considered view, non-adjudication of the CLMA application, and upholding the preliminary objection of non- maintainability of one appeal by High Court has caused serious prejudice to the appellant.” (ii) Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Another reported in (2006) 1 SCC 75. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below; “17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well recognized exceptions to this principle are :- i) where the Statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non-compliance. ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it; iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous; iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court. Page No.# 6/8 v) in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant.” (iii) Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon reported in 1969 (1) SCC 869, where it is held that a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent decree holder while supporting the execution proceedings and the decision of the Customary Court and the learned District Judge submits that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to contest the case but failed to appear resulting in the ex-parte decision. He also submitted that there is an alternate remedy for filing appeal against the Kebang decision dated 16.03.2020, however, the petitioner preferred this civil revision petition at a belated stage and no any explanation has been given for not filing the revision petition within the stipulated time. 11. Having considered the submission of both the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the Customary Court having granted liberty for reconduct of the trial (re-kebang) within 15 days, acted unreasonably in declining the petitioner’s complaint against the ex-parte Kebang decision without considering the merit of the application. 12. The execution proceedings initiated pursuant to the ex-parte Kebang Decision dated 19.02.2020 cannot be permitted to continue in view of this Page No.# 7/8 infirmity. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner is the executing authority from the decision of the village authority and not the court of the District Judge as per the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021 (amended). Furthermore, considering the ground explained for delay in filing the instant petition, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was prevented by a sufficient cause for not filing the petition within time, hence, the delay if any stands condoned. 13. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Civil revision petition is allowed. 14. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion to give the following directions: (i) The ex-parte decision dated 19.02.2020 is hereby set aside in respect of the decision that the respondent can occupy his part of the land and from the boundary which is shown by the respondent. (ii) The decision of the Customary Court, Boying village dated 16.03.2020 is also set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Customary Court, Boying village for fresh adjudication after hearing both the parties. (iv) The execution proceeding pending before the Deputy Commissioner/ District Judge shall stand quashed in view of this order. (v) The Customary Court shall decide the matter afresh and in Page No.# 8/8 accordance with law. (vi) The interim staying the Execution proceeding stands merged with this final order. 15. With the above, these civil revision petitions stand disposed of. Send back the record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant