Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 366 (GAU)

Engkunga v. R. L. Dinpuia

2013-05-30

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2013
ORDER Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl in R.F.A. No. 5/2012 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Respondent was the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 15/2006 in the Subordinate Council Court, Aizawl. Contention of the plaintiff was that he had paid Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant on promise that he would be appointed as Police Constable in the 1st Mizoram Armed Police Battalion. Since he was not appointed, plaintiff demanded refund of the money. Suit was filed for recovery of the said amount. 4. Defendant denied receiving any money from the plaintiff. 5. By judgment and decree dated 18.2.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, meaning thereby that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the said amount. 6. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 18.2.2008, defendant filed appeal before the District Council Court, Aizawl. In view of the separation of judiciary in the State of Mizoram, the case was transferred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl for disposal. By the judgment and order dated 24.2.2012, learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2008. 7. Aggrieved, defendant filed further appeal before the District Court, Aizawl, which was registered as R.F.A. No. 5/2012. The learned appellate Court by the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 dismissed the appeal holding that there was no merit in the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, defendant as the petitioner has filed the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very foundation of the suit was based on an illegal action, namely, giving bribe money for procurement of a job. Petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit, had, however, denied the claim of the plaintiff that he had received money from him (plaintiff) for arranging a job for him. 9. Be that as it may, it is a settled proposition that no legal action can be instituted for perpetuating an illegality or for upholding an illegal cause, which in this case is clearly a criminal offence. 9. Be that as it may, it is a settled proposition that no legal action can be instituted for perpetuating an illegality or for upholding an illegal cause, which in this case is clearly a criminal offence. Learned Court below had noticed in the impugned order that plaintiff had lodged an FIR before the Bawngkawn Police Station and had also moved the Home Minister. Despite this, it did not interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. 10. In the circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Court is null and void in the eye of law. No judgment could have been passed by the learned trial Court on a cause which is illegal and is a criminal offence. Accordingly, all the orders passed by the Courts below are set aside and quashed. Revision petition stands allowed.