JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Lalsawirema, the Government Advocate for the State appellants (defendants). None appears on behalf of the respondents (plaintiffs), after this Court permitted on 21.11.2011, the withdrawal of Mr. M. Zothankhuma and Ms. D. Lalrinchhani, who were initially representing the respondents. 2. The Money Suit No. 1/1995 was filed in the Court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizwal claiming Rs. 14,56,866/- and interest. The 2 plaintiffs (respondents) claimed to represent the interest of 12 others, who were allegedly engaged as labour contractors, for construction of SREP Road (Rungdil Road) Section-II Part 1 (20-40 KMP) and Part-II (24-36 KMP) under Casual Roll Crash Programme, of the Mizoram Government. The road construction work was started on 1.2.1985 and was completed by 30.4.1095 and the plaintiffs contended that labours for the work was supplied by them and they also constructed labour camps, for accommodation of those labourers. According to the plaintiffs, the work was of urgent nature and no contract agreement was signed with the labour contractors by the department authorities. 3. The defendants filed written statement on 27.5.1996 questioning, inter alia, the maintainability of the suit as Court Fee wasn't paid by the plaintiffs and that the suit was filed beyond the limitation period. It was also contended that no labour contract work was allotted and in fact the road work in question was executed departmentally by the P.W.D., under the paragraph 20 and 21 of Section 9 Volume-II of the CPWD Manual by direct engagement of the labourers by the PWD and labour payments were accordingly made directly, to the engaged labourers and accordingly the defendants denied any liability to pay any amount to the alleged labour contractors. The defendants also contended that no record of Bills was available under the Saitual Sub-Division within whose jurisdiction the road was constructed and the report of the S.D.O of Sateek Sub-Division, Aibawk as relied by the plaintiffs is not at all relevant, for considering the entitlement to payments of alleged labour contractors. 4. On the basis of the exchange of pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court : (i) Whether there is any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. (ii) Whether the Suit is maintainable in the present form and manner. 4. On the basis of the exchange of pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court : (i) Whether there is any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. (ii) Whether the Suit is maintainable in the present form and manner. (iii) Whether the Suit is barred by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and also by limitation. (iv) Whether the present Suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata. (v) Whether present Suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs have not sought permission of the Court to sue on behalf of the other interest parties. (vi) Whether the plaintiffs were allotted any contract work for construction of SREP Road (Rungdil Road) under Casual Roll Crash Project. (vii) Whether the Government of Mizoram sanctioned any amount to be paid to the plaintiff. (viii) Whether the plaintiff are entitled to any relief if so, to what extent. 5.1 In the trial, only plaintiffs themselves deposed to prove their case, whereas no evidence was adduced by the defendants. 5.2 On the basis of the plaintiff's testimony, the trial Court held that the 2 plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,56,866/- in their representative capacity and accordingly the defendants were directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 6 months, by the impugned judgment dated 12.7.2007 in Money Suit NO. 1/1995. 5.3 The aggrieved defendants challenged the decree by filing RFA NO. 18/2007 in the Court of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl. But the learned Appellate Court by considering that the suit is valued at above Rs. 5,00,000/- and the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act refused to entertain the Appeal. Accordingly the aggrieved defendants have moved the High Court in Appeal. 6.1 The defendants challenge the legality of the decree by contending that the plaintiffs failed to prove that any work order was given for their engagement as labour contractors and it is further contended that the extent of payable service purportedly provided by the plaintiffs as labour contractors was never proved during the trial. 6.2 The learned Addl. 6.1 The defendants challenge the legality of the decree by contending that the plaintiffs failed to prove that any work order was given for their engagement as labour contractors and it is further contended that the extent of payable service purportedly provided by the plaintiffs as labour contractors was never proved during the trial. 6.2 The learned Addl. Advocate General points out that the work was executed by the PWD by direct engagement of labours, whose wages were paid departmentally by the P.W.D. and therefore the appellants contend that, there is no question of any labour contractors getting any amount, in the absence of any work order given by the PWD. 6.3 The appellants also contend that since the work was executed in the year 1985, a belated Money Suit filed in the year 1995 is barred by limitation. Furthermore since no Court Fee was paid by the plaintiffs and a representative suit is filed on behalf of the 12 others without due authorization, the proceeding was defective and the suit should have been dismissed at the threshold on those counts. 6.4 The defendants project that the work was executed under Saitual Sub-Division and in the absence of any authenticated report/work order by the authorities of the Saitual Sub-Division, the Court shouldn't have ordered the Money Suit, in favour of the plaintiffs. 6.5 Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that the so called enquiry report mentioned in the plaint was never exhibited in the trial and since the plaintiffs failed to prove through acceptable evidence that, they were engaged as labour contractors for the road construction work (SREP Road), the suit couldn't have been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, on the basis of the available case materials. 7. Although several substantial points are urged by the appellants (defendants) in the present Appeal, there is none present from the side of the respondents (plaintiffs), to support the Trial Court's decree. 8. Under Section 17(2) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005, considering that the suit value exceeds Rs. 5,00,000/, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Appeal. Accordingly the Appeal is being considered. 9. The evidence shows that the suit was decreed only on the basis of the evidence of the 2 plaintiffs. But no work order was produced to show that plaintiffs were engaged as labour contractors. 5,00,000/, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Appeal. Accordingly the Appeal is being considered. 9. The evidence shows that the suit was decreed only on the basis of the evidence of the 2 plaintiffs. But no work order was produced to show that plaintiffs were engaged as labour contractors. It further appears that the neither the Court Fee was paid, nor the suit was valued. That apart, the issue of limitation was also not considered appropriately by the Court. 10. At the same time the defendants too did not adduce any evidence to show that labourers were directly engaged by the PWD under paragraph 20 & 21 of Section 9 Volume-II of CPWD Manual. But nevertheless in the absence of any supporting evidence in favour of the plaintiffs from the authorities of the Saitual Sub-Division, this Court has difficulty in accepting that, the suit was decreed on the basis of credible evidence. In such circumstances, particularly in the absence of the respondents (plaintiffs), I feel that cause of justice would be better served by remitting the matter back to the learned Trial Court for a fresh adjudication, to enable both the parties to adduce evidence/further evidence, in support of their respective contentions. 11. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned Addl. Advocate General points out that although, the suit was originally tried in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, since after separation of the judiciary in the Mizoram State, all Money Suit exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/- in value, is now to be tried at the first instance, in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl. 12. In view of above the Registry is directed to transmit the appeal records arising out of the decree in the Money Suit No. 1/1995 to the learned District Judge, Aizawl. The learned District Judge may then assign the fresh adjudication of the suit, by either of the Senior Civil Judges, posted as Aizawl. 13. Since none has appeared during the hearing of this Appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs, the learned Trial Court may issue Notice(s) on the plaintiffs, after the case is assigned to the concerned Court, by the learned District Judge, Aizawl. 14. With the aforesaid direction, the Appeal stands disposed of without any order on cost.