ORDER S.K. Kar, J. 1. This is an appeal presented on the strength of Clause (3) of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over the District Council Courts) Order, 1954 in order to Assail the judgment and order dated 25-9-2001 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Sub-Ordinate District Council Court, Aizawl in Money Suit No. 15 of 2001 which was affirmed by judgment and order dated 4-9-2002 passed by the District Council Court, Aizawl in R.F.A. Case No. 23 of 2001. 2. I have heard Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent, although notice was issued and accepted by the Court having been as served. 3. The respondent herein Smt. C. Laldingi instituted the suit, being Money Suit No. 15 of 2001, on 30-5-2001 against the present appellant Smt. Hmangaihzuali alleging that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- on 3-12-1992 and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 4-9-1993. That it was further agreed that the appellant/defendant will pay interest @ 10% per month till the amount is repaid. That neither the principal nor the interest was paid. Hence the suit. 4. The appellant failed to present before the trial Court her written statement and the suit was decreed ex parte for the recovery of principal amount of Rs, 1,40,000/- along with an equal amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- as an interest on lump sum thereby decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,80,000/-. 5. The appellant approached the First Appellate Court challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment and order of the trial Court raising several grounds along with a prayer for remanding the case for retrial in order to give an opportunity to the appellant to file written statement and to adduce evidence in order to counter the allegations made. The appellate Court, however, upheld the judgment of the trial Court instead and hence she has filed the present appeal. 6. The grounds of appeal as stated in the memorandum (memo) of appeal are as follows. That the Courts below erred in law and acted without jurisdiction, the Trial Court being only a Court of Magistrate First Class. That no court fees were paid and there was bar of limitation as the alleged date of borrowing was in the year 1992 and 1993 but the suit was presented only in the year 2001. That the Courts below erred in law and acted without jurisdiction, the Trial Court being only a Court of Magistrate First Class. That no court fees were paid and there was bar of limitation as the alleged date of borrowing was in the year 1992 and 1993 but the suit was presented only in the year 2001. That the reasonable opportunity was not given to the defendant-appellant by the trial Court and both the Courts acted in bias and there was violation of principle of justice, equity and good conscience, That the appellant pleaded before the trial Court verbally that she had not borrowed any money from the respondent-plaintiff but the Court refused to record her plea. That she was married to one Mr. P. Liana through whom she gave births to two daughters and two sons and she had the knowledge that her husband Mr. P. Liana borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from the defendant (sic) but had no knowledge of borrowing any other sum of Rs. 50,000/-. That Mr. P. Liana committed adultery and left her for which she was facing extreme financial hardships to maintain herself and children begotten through her former husband, that the interest was assessed by the trial Court most arbitrarily to be a sum equal to the principal. That it was wrongly held by the appellate Court that there was no denial on the part of the appellant in so far the question of borrowing the money was concerned although there was no such opinion recorded by the trial Court. That there was nothing in the record of trial Court to say whether there was any case of admission or denial by the appellant-defendant. That in any case the defendant/appellant should have been given an opportunity of contesting the claim on merit before fastening her with the liability in question. Accordingly, she submitted that the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below cannot be sustained. 7. Although the aforesaid grounds were raised in the memo of appeal but during the arguments the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has restricted his submissions only on the question that the appellant was not given any opportunity to contest the claim and the assessment of the interest was made without any basis and in a most arbitrary way. 8. Although the aforesaid grounds were raised in the memo of appeal but during the arguments the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has restricted his submissions only on the question that the appellant was not given any opportunity to contest the claim and the assessment of the interest was made without any basis and in a most arbitrary way. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment and orders and considered the materials in the connected case records of the lower Courts which records were called for and forwarded. 9. The trial Court's record shows that the case was disposed of by only affording one opportunity to the defendant 'to file objection, if any', with a condition that if no objection is filed, the case will be decided ex-parte and accordingly on the date fixed for objection the impugned judgment and order was passed without asking for written statement or recording any evidence. 10. The English version of the 'petition', supposed to be the plaint goes as follows :-- "To The Magistrate, Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl. Sir, I have the honour to pray your goodself to kindly recover my money as I have no other means to recover the same. She promised to recover the same at 10% Yours faithfully, Sd/- C. Laldingi, Zotlang Veng, Aiizawl, C/o C. Thangkhuma. 11. After going carefully through the entire case records of the Money Suit No, 15 of 2001 of the Trial Court, I find that there is nothing except this 'petition' addressed to the Magistrate by the plaintiff-respondent. The 'petition' is not even verified and petitioner or plaintiff was not examined on oath. Therefore/there was absolutely no evidence of any kind, not even verified statement, upon which the case was decided by the learned trial Court. It was equally the state of affairs before the appellate Court. It appears that the appellate Court decided the appeal after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the ground that the appellant-defendant did not deny the fact that she was in debt of the plaintiff. There was absolutely no discussion or reference to any evidence. Admittedly, there was no written statement (or objection as the Court opined) on record. 12. Let us look into the relevant rules under which criminal or civil Justice is being administered in the State of Mizoram (erswhile Lushai Hills District). There was absolutely no discussion or reference to any evidence. Admittedly, there was no written statement (or objection as the Court opined) on record. 12. Let us look into the relevant rules under which criminal or civil Justice is being administered in the State of Mizoram (erswhile Lushai Hills District). Rules for the regulation of the Procedure of Officers Appointed to Administer Justice in the Lushai Hills, (No. 2530(a) A.P. dated 25th March, 1937) and Lushai Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953, (No. DLC 14/53 dated April, 7th, 1953) are the provisions for the same. In the "repeal and savings' provision as per the latter rules, Rule 59 goes as follows :-- "59(1) The provisions of the Rules for the Regulation of the Procedure of Officers Appointed to Administer Justice in the Lushai Hills, published under the Government of Assam Notification No. 2530(a) A.P. dated 25th March, 1937, as subsequently amended and adopted, in so far as they relate to the matters dealt with in these Rules, are hereby repealed with effect from the appointed day. (2) x x x Rule 21 of the former rules of 1937 goes as follows :-- 21. Although the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (Act IX of 1908), has been barred by Notification No. 5868 -- A. P. dated the 8th September, 1934 the principles of the Act should be closely followed in dispute between persons not belonging to a Scheduled tribe or tribes specified in items 1 and 2 of Part 1, Assam of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 13. 'Procedure' for administration of justice in civil cases are given by the latter rules of 1953 and relevant provisions are as follows :-- "46(1) In all civil cases the District Council Court the Subordinate District Council Courts and the Additional Subordinate District Council Court shall adjudicate according to law, justice, equity and good conscience consistent with the circumstances of the case (2) It shall be discretionary to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation in any form to warn them that they are liable to punishment for perjury if they state that which they know to be false. 48. 48. In civil cases, the procedure of the District Council Court or the Subordinate District Council Courts or the Additional Subordinate District Council Court shall be guided by the spirit, but not bound by the letter of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in all matters not covered by recognised customary laws or usages of the Districts." A plain reading of the rules quoted above will show that the District Council Court and the Subordinate District Council Court are required to follow the minimum of the procedure prescribed in CPC. (Civil Procedure Code) in addition to adhering to canon of justice, equity and good conscience while adjudicating matters brought before them. It may be noted also that the former Rules of 1937 have stood modified and varied as per the latter rules of 1953. 14. In the instant case the suit was instituted for recovery of a loan/debt and in response to the notice of filing the suit the defendant appeared but without giving her appropriate opportunity the trial Court proceeded ahead and decided the suit ex parte on the third date fixed for objection etc. This cannot be said as following the principle of justice, equity and good conscience and spirit of Civil Procedure Code. 15. Then again, coming to the question of consideration of interest, it will be seen that the interest claimed was 10% per month which will mean that a sum of Rs. 100/- will bring interest of Rs. 120/- per annum, i.e. a sum more than the principal itself after end of a year. In other words, the amount of interest, if calculated at the given rate it will be Rs. 15,12,000/- (Fifteen lakhs twelve thousand) for period of nine (9) years i.e. from 3-12-92, date of borrowing till date of suit, 30-5-2001. This is irrational and unacceptable to the sense of equity and good conscience, if not unconscionable and unethical. The interest claimed should be proportionate to the 'current rate of interest' available at the relevant time under provision of Section 3 read with 2(b) of (The) Interest Act 1978, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary and at any rate at a reasonable rate as opposed to exhorbitant one Moreover, Section 23 of Contract Act will also stand as a bar to such claim of rate of interest, being immoral and against public policy. The interest was thus illegally assessed. 16. The interest was thus illegally assessed. 16. In any case no dispute can be resolved without asking for prima facie evidence and what is evidence has been defined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act of 1872), to be referred in short as 'Evidence Act', as follows :-- " "Evidence" : Evidence means and includes -- (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by Witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; Such documents are called documentary evidence." 17. In the instant case neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court took notice of this law that at least the contents of the plaint should have been 'proved' by evidence of the plaintiff whether she is administered oath or otherwise asked to make statement which will be true and correct to the best of her knowledge and information. But the learned trial Court below has opined that the plaintiff has deposed that the defendant has borrowed the money with agreement to pay interest. I find no such deposition in the case records of the trial Court. The learned trial Court abruptly came to the conclusion that as the defendant failed to appear and submitted nothing in writing, the submission of the plaintiff is to be treated as true and correct. This view of the trial Court, in my opinion, is contrary to the principle of justice, equity and good conscience. Moreover, the interest due should be assessed only on basis of a reasonable ground, particularly in view of the long delay of nine years in coming to seek relief from the Court. Therefore, it has been rightly submitted that under the facts and circumstances the suit is required to be sent down to the trial Court for trial afresh after giving appropriate opportunity to the defendant-appellant. It may not be out of context to mention here that at least the facts alleged are required to be proved by the party bringing the suit to discharge the initial burden of proof even in an ex parte hearing. Production of evidence is the minimum requirement to decide controversial facts even if the CPC and other laws are not followed in letters and spirit by the Courts established in the State of Mizoram. Production of evidence is the minimum requirement to decide controversial facts even if the CPC and other laws are not followed in letters and spirit by the Courts established in the State of Mizoram. The word 'proved' has the definition in the Evidence Act as follows :-- ""Proved" : A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists." 18. It is said that a judgment is after all an opinion based on reasons and if an opinion is expressed without reason it is not a judgment but an arbitrary action. The judgment of the learned appellate Court would show that it rejected the submission of the appellant expressing its opinion as follows:-- "After hearing counsel for both the parties we came to a conclusion that there is no need to send back the case to the lower Court for re-trial as Smt. Hmangaihzuali did not deny the fact that she had a debt with C. Laldingi. Hence, we uphold the decision of the Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl". No reasons lor rejecting the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was recorded. It is the general principle that the appellate Court should weigh the evidence on record afresh and give its own findings without dittoing the findings of the trial Court. When not done so the order of the appellate Court will be treated as improper and illegal. 19. In the result, I find there is merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgments and Orders of the two Courts below are set aside and suit is sent back to the trial Court with a direction to give appropriate opportunity to the appellant-defendant to present her written statement and thereafter decide the suit in-accordance with the law following the principle of justice, equity and good conscience. It is needless to say that on presentation of written statement by the defendant, if facts alleged by plaintiff are controverted, then 'facts in issue' may arise before the Court to answer them on the basis of evidence adduced by parties. 20. It is needless to say that on presentation of written statement by the defendant, if facts alleged by plaintiff are controverted, then 'facts in issue' may arise before the Court to answer them on the basis of evidence adduced by parties. 20. Parties are directed to appear before trial Court within 30 days from today and defendant will present her written statement within next 30 days of her appearance before trial Court. Send back the LCR's promptly.