Page No.# 1/10 GAHC020007012025 2026:GAU-NL:314 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : C. REVN/9/2025 AONOKPU VILLAGE COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS VILLAGE COUNCIL CHAIRMAN SHRI P. ALEM MEREN, SON OF LATE PURCHIBA, R/O AONOKPU VILLAGE, MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND VERSUS MANKOTONGMEN LONGKUMER CLAN AND 6 ORS A SUB CLAN OF THE LONGKUMER CLAN OF THE AONOKPU VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF THEIR CLAN IN CHARGE, MEREN CHIBA, SON OF LATE TEMJENSOBA, PERMANENT R/O AONOKPU VILLAGE, MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 2:AONOKPU SENSO MONGDAND AONOKPU VILLAGE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI SAMACHUJANG SON OF SHRI CHUBASASHI AONOKPU VILLAGE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 3:CHARIR CLAN AONOKPU VILLAGE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS CLAN ELDERS SHRI YANGALEMBA SON OF LATE SUTSUNGDANGBA AONOKPU YIMSEN MOKOKCHUBNG NAGALAND 4:LONGKUMER CLAN Page No.# 2/10 LONGKUMER CLAN OF CHURIKONG ORIGIN SUB CLAN OF LONGKUMER CLAN AONOKPU VILLAGE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND THROUGH THEIR ONLY SURVIVING ADULT MALE MEMBERS SHRI TEKAMETONG SON OF LATE PURCHIBA 5:SHRI ALEMMEREN SON OF LATE PURCHIBA PERMANENT R/O AONOKPU VILLAGE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 6:AONOKPU BAPTIST AROGU AONOKPU VILLAGE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY ITS MISSION CHAIRMAN SHRI LANUKABA SON OF LATE LUENSANGBA 7:THE EDITORIAL BOARD AONOKPU BAPTIST AROGO CENTENARY NUNGO 1906 TO 2006 AONOKPU VILLAGE. MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND. REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR SHRI K. IMLIYANGER JAMI Advocate for the Petitioner : MOA JAMIR, Y HUMTSOE,THEJANUO METHA,SHISA JAMIR,K SHIJOH,GRACE I NAMGI Advocate for the Respondent : , Advocates: For the Petitioner : Moa Jamir For the State respondents : C.T. Jamir, Sr. Adv. : Imkong Jamir Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 01.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : -- operative part of the Judgment? Whether the full Judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 3/10 BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the CPC, assailing the impugned order dated 18.09.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Mokokchung in Civil Appeal No. 1/2020, which was an appeal against the order dated 20.03.2020, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mokokchung, Nagaland in Declaratory Suit No. 1/2008. 2. Notice was issued in the instant petition on 23.10.2025. The petitioner was directed to take steps for service on the respondents through speed post. As the notice could not be effected, the petitioner was allowed to take steps on respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 by dasti mode and to file affidavit of service by an order dated 08.12.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner took steps by dasti and filed the compliance affidavit. This Court by order dated 29.01.2026 held that notice is complete upon the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. However, none appeared for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in spite of the notice being duly served. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing none appears for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this petition is that the respondent no.1/plaintiff had instituted a suit registered as Declaratory Suit No. 1/2008 against the petitioner as well as the proforma respondents in this application, before the learned Civil Judge, Mokokchung, Nagaland praying for a declaration of clan status as Aonokpu village founders and for restoration of all rights and privileges thereof by issuing a permanent Page No.# 4/10 injunction, by setting the omission of Longkhum village in the Aonokpu Baptist Arogo Centenary Nungo 2006 in addition to Waromong Village for establishment of Nokpuyimjen, the erstwhile Aonokpu village as well as to set aside the decision dated 19.10.2007, passed by the Aonokpu Senso Mongdang. 4. In the aforementioned Declaratory Suit No. 1/2008 filed in the year 2008, the respondent No.1/Plaintiff had impleaded seven defendants including the present petitioner. The proforma respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 had filed their respective written statements on different dates. The defendant no. 2 filed the written statement in the month of March 2012, defendant nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 filed their written statements in the month of February 2016, which were allowed by the Trial Court without any objection. 5. The petitioner herein also entered appearance before the learned Trial Court on 20.03.2020 and prayed before the Trial Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) to allow the petitioner to file a written statement. However, without considering the submissions of the petitioner, the learned Trial Court by order dated 20.03.2020 in Declaratory Suit No. 1/2008 rejected the prayer of the petitioner/defendant no. 1 and fixed the case on 30.04.2020 for framing of issues. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 20.03.2020, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) the petitioner herein filed Civil Appeal No. 1/2020 before the learned District Judge, Mokokchung. However, the learned District Judge by impugned order dated 18.09.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1/2020 dismissed the Appeal without proper appreciation of facts and law involved in the matter. Being aggrieved by Page No.# 5/10 the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Mokokchung, Nagaland, the petitioner has preferred the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India R/W Section 115 of the CPC praying for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 20.03.2020 and 18.09.2025. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Moa Jamir and Learned Senior counsel, Mr. C.T Jamir assisted by Mr. Imkong Jamir for the respondent no. 2. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Moa Jamir submits that every Village Council holds office for a period of 5 years from the date of appointment under the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 (for short, the Act of 1978). However, village institutions that are traditionally established like the Putu Menden in the Ao area continues to function according to respective customs and usages. With regard to Aonokpu village, the village council holds office for a period of five years as provided under the Act of 1978. As such a total of 3 (three) separate terms of the village council were appointed and existed during the pendency of the Declaratory Suit since 2008. During the two earlier terms of the village council no decision could be taken to contest the suit inasmuch as there was internal conflict amongst the village council members having different opinions with regard to the subject matter of the suit. No amicable settlement could be arrived at amongst the village council members for contesting the suit and eventually the village council was dissolved in the year 2017. 9. During the intervening period, several persons held the post of Chairman for interim periods solely for administrative functions in the Page No.# 6/10 village. Subsequently, the village general body of Aonokpu Village intervened in the matter and appointed a nominating committee to select new village council members and accordingly the Committee selected 5 persons as Village Council Members and the selected list of members was forwarded to the State Government for approval. Finally, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Mokokchung, Nagaland wrote a letter dated 30.11.2018 communicating the approval of the Government of the newly elected Village Council Members of Aonokpu Village. 10. Thereafter, the Aonokpu Village Council under the new Chairman adopted a resolution on 05.11.2019 to contest the suit and to engage a counsel to represent the petitioner/defendant no.1 in the suit. It was only after this resolution that the petitioner entered appearance on 20.03.2020 and prayed before the Trial Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) to allow the petitioner to file a written statement. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Declaratory Suit No. 1/ 2008 was instituted in the year 2008 and the Trial Court allowed the defendant no. 2 to file its written statement in March 2012 and also the other defendants to file their written statements in February 2016. The written statement of the petitioner/defendant no.1 is required to be placed on record in order to resolve the issues involved in the suit. In fact, without the written statement of the petitioner the learned Trial Court will not be able to adjudicate the suit properly. It is submitted that the Learned Trial Court did not take into consideration the exceptional circumstances which prevented the petitioner from filing the written statement on time. In order to give substantial justice to the parties and for proper adjudication of the case, the written statement of Page No.# 7/10 the petitioner needs to be brought on record. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer any prejudice due to the inaction of the previous village councils. 12. The learned council for the petitioner, Mr. Moa Jamir has relied on the following authorities in support of his submissions: (i) Kailash Versus Nanhku & others, (2005) 4 SCC 480; (ii) Zolba Versus Keshao and others, (2008) 11 SCC 769; (iii) Balraj Taneja and another Versus Sunil Madan and another, (1999) 8 SCC 396 and (iv) Bharat Kalra Versus Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 SCC Online SC 613. 13. By relying on the above referred cases, the learned counsel submits that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, being a part of procedural law is directory in nature and not mandatory. The power to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not completely taken away. It was held in Kailash Versus Nanhku (Supra) that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC can be allowed when the circumstances are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. It was also held in the case of Bharat Kalra (Supra) that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable. 14. The learned senior counsel, Mr. C.T Jamir appearing for proforma respondent No.2 has supported the case of the petitioner and submits that the written statement of the petitioner/Aonokpu Village Council needs to be brought on record and will be pertinent in order to fully and Page No.# 8/10 completely adjudicate the Declaratory Suit No. 1/2008. 15. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsels and also examined the pleadings and the authorities relied upon in detail. 16. Under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the defendant should file the written statement within 30 days from service of summons. The court may extend this period up to 90 days, and a maximum of 120 days in normal civil suits, not being a commercial suit. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Versus Nanhku (Supra), held that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is a part of procedural law and procedural law is meant to facilitate justice and that the 90-day cap is directory and not mandatory. Further in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Versus Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 also stated that the strict 90-day time limit to file a written statement is generally directory rather than mandatory and it is designed to advance justice and courts can extend this period in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. 17. Be that as it may, it is gathered from the records that the Declaratory Suit No. 1/2008 is still in the initial stage and trial has not started as issues have not been framed. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that procedural laws are intended to advance justice and courts should ordinarily prefer adjudication on merits rather than shutting out the defence. This court has also found that the delay was not deliberate or mala fide and no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 by the delay. Above all, the petitioner/defendant no. 1 is the most important and vital party in the suit and the stand of the petitioner/defendant no. 1 by way of filing written statement will be Page No.# 9/10 essential to adjudicate the suit on merits as allowing the written statement would assist in determining the real controversy between the parties. 18. It is a fact that there has been a considerable delay in the appearance of the petitioner/defendant no.1 in the suit but at the same time the suit is not a commercial suit and issues have not yet been framed. The consequence of sustaining the impugned orders would be that the suit may be decided without consideration of the petitioner’s defence. While delay cannot be encouraged, the Court must balance procedural discipline with the requirement of rendering substantial justice between the parties. 19. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and the exceptional circumstances and the stage of the suit and in order to afford a final opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders deserve to be interfered with, however, on stringent terms. 20. The impugned order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mokokchung, Nagaland in Declaratory Suit No. 1/2008 and the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned District Judge Mokokchung in Civil Appeal No. 1/2020 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mokokchung, who shall permit the petitioner/defendant no. 1 to file the written statement within 30 days from today, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the respondent no. 1/Plaintiff. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited before the Trial Court within the said period. 21. The Trial court shall thereafter proceed with the suit expeditiously Page No.# 10/10 and in accordance with law. No order as to further costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 23. Send back the Trial Court Records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant