JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Ms. Lalawmpuii Fanai, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondents have landed property bearing Periodic Patta No. 595/2006 and Periodic Patta No. 864/2010 located at Sairilzokhamhnuai-Sairang Vairengte. The appellants had approached the respondents to hand over some portion of their land for the purpose of widening NH-44 ‘A’. For this purpose, an agreement was made between the appellants and the respondents, stating that the respondents have agreed to pass through their lands for widening of NH-44 ‘A’ between 6.60 – 6.700 kms and received a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on 15.02.2013 for compensation. The agreement was signed by both the parties. After receiving a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, the respondents approached the learned Senior Civil Judge by filing Damage Suit No. 3/2014 for declaring that an agreement dated 15.02.2013 is null and void and the appellant Nos. 5 & 6 were in competent authority to make an agreement and for the appellant No. 7, i.e., District Collector to make an assessment as per law. It was also contended that the appellants had also used the respondents’ land covered by Periodic Patta No. 864/2010 as dumping ground, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs/respondents, which caused severe damage to the plaintiffs/respondents’ land as well as the plaintiffs/respondents’ crops. 3. On filing the Damage Suit No. 3/2014, the appellants were asked to file their written statements on 24.11.2014. However, on failure of submission of written statements, the learned Trial Court on 22.05.2015, closed the chance for submission of written statements by the appellants/defendant Nos. 5 & 6. Thereafter, the following issues were framed in the absence of defendants, which are as follows:- “1) Whether the defendant/appellant Nos. 1- 7 had caused damage to the Plaintiff’s lands covered by Periodic Patta No. 595/2006 and Periodic Patta No. 864/2010 or not. 2) Whether the assessment made by the Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in para-11 of the Plaint is acceptable or not? 3) Whether “Inremsiamna” dt. 15.02.2013 was valid agreement or not? 4) Whether the Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is entitled to the relief claimed. If so, to what extent.” 4. The plaintiffs produced 3 (three) witnesses to prove their case on 18.03.2016. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos. 3) Whether “Inremsiamna” dt. 15.02.2013 was valid agreement or not? 4) Whether the Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is entitled to the relief claimed. If so, to what extent.” 4. The plaintiffs produced 3 (three) witnesses to prove their case on 18.03.2016. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 was also present on that day and had prayed for time to refresh their memory for cross examination of the examination-in-chief of the 3 (three) witnesses. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court had fixed 2:30 p.m for the cross examination. However, the learned standing counsel for the defendants appeared on 3:15 p.m. and therefore, the learned Trial Court closed the chance of cross examination of the 3 (three) plaintiff witnesses by the defendants. The learned Trial Court on 06.06.2016 passed the impugned ex-parte judgment & order. Aggrieved by this, hence the appeal. 5. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the appellants submits that they are aggrieved by the first part of the judgment, which holds that the agreement dated 15.02.2013 is not valid in the eye of law. She also submits that the learned Trial Court had not given sufficient chance to the appellants for submission of their written statements and had proceeded with the case and decided all the issues in favour of the respondents/defendants. The reason that the learned counsel for the appellants had delayed in submission of their written statements was due to the frequent transfer of the learned Senior Civil Judges, who were to try this case. That the Additional/Assistant Government Advocates were allotted different Senior Civil Judges to defend the State Government and the endorsement of the case to different Courts of Senior Civil Judges and also on the new appointment of Government Advocates, had caused the delay in filling the written statements, since the different Government Advocates had to get acquainted with the case afresh each time and the case was endorsed to a different Senior Civil Judge. The learned Government Advocate further submits that on perusal of the case record, it is clear that there were periods when the case was remanded back to the District & Sessions Judge for re-endorsement. The learned Government Advocate further submits that on perusal of the case record, it is clear that there were periods when the case was remanded back to the District & Sessions Judge for re-endorsement. From the case record of the Lower Court, it is clear that the defendants were to submit their written statements between the period from 24.11.2014 to 22.05.2015, between which the case had been remanded back twice to the District & Sessions Judge for re-endorsement and accordingly, it was re-endorsed to the Senior Civil Judge. On 22.05.2015, the learned Senior Civil Judge passed an order not allowing the defendants to submit their written statements without assigning any valid reason. 6. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the learned Trial Court had also not allowed the cross examination of the 3 (three) plaintiffs witnesses on 18.03.2016,when the learned counsel for the defendants was late by just about 40 minutes of the given time and that they were present within the Court hours. She also submits that great injustice should be done in this case, if they are not allowed to submit their written statements, since there are different facts that need to be proved regarding the submissions made by the plaintiffs in the plaint. 7. The learned Government Advocate for the appellant has relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shantilal Gulabch and Mutha Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited and Another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 396 , Sumtibai and Others Vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) through Mankanwar (Smt) W/o ParasmalChordia (Dead) and Others, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 82 . 8. The learned Government Advocate further submits that the client should not be made to suffer for the inaction of his advocate and has relied on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Another Vs. Raghu Raj, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 395 . 9. Ms. 8. The learned Government Advocate further submits that the client should not be made to suffer for the inaction of his advocate and has relied on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Another Vs. Raghu Raj, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 395 . 9. Ms. Lalawmpuii Fanai, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that there is no grounds for remanding back the case to the learned Trial Court for submission of written statements, since the defendants had received a copy of the plaint and were to submit their written statements on 23.06.2014 and ample time was given to the learned counsel for the defendants to submit their written statements and in spite of a lapse of almost one year, they have failed to do so. 10. She further submits that the learned Trial Court did not erred in not allowing the cross examination of the 3 (three) plaintiff witnesses on 18.03.2016, since they had not appeared within the time given by the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court had full discretion to not allow the cross examination of the 3 (three) plaintiffs witnesses. She further submits that the judgment & order of the learned Trial Court dated 06.06.2016 may be upheld, since the learned Trial Court had ordered that the District Collector may verify and make assessment of the damaged caused to the respondents/defendants/plaintiffs landed properties covered by Periodic Patta No. 595/2006 and Periodic Patta No. 864/2010 and compensation should be made for the damages caused after deducting Rs. 80,000/-, which the plaintiff received in advance. That if this matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court, it would again take many years for the final conclusion of the case while the respondents/plaintiffs have been suffering and not able to make any maintenance or development over their lands, which was used as a dumping ground by the appellants. 11. Having considered the submissions made by both the parties, the documents on record and the order sheet of the case record of the Lower Court is meticulously perused. The learned Assistant Government Advocate had appeared before the Court on 23.06.2014 and had prayed for time for submission of written statements, wherein the Court had given time till 18.09.2014. 11. Having considered the submissions made by both the parties, the documents on record and the order sheet of the case record of the Lower Court is meticulously perused. The learned Assistant Government Advocate had appeared before the Court on 23.06.2014 and had prayed for time for submission of written statements, wherein the Court had given time till 18.09.2014. However, it is seen that on 03.09.2014, the case was returned to the District on promotion of the Senior Civil Judge. On 09.09.2014, the case was endorsed to a different trial Judge, Lalramsanga, Senior Civil Judge for disposal. On 18.09.2014, the Senior Civil Judge fixed 25.11.2014 for submission of written statements, however on 17.11.2014, the case was again returned to the District & Sessions Judge for re-endorsement due to transfer/promotion of the concerned Senior Civil Judge. The District & Sessions Judge had then endorsed the case to a different Senior Civil Judge on 26.11.2014 and thereafter, Senior Civil Judge on 19.02.2015, fixed 25.03.2015 for submission of written statements by the defendants. On 25.03.2015, the Court again fixed 20.04.2015 for submission of written statements, however on 24.04.2015, the learned Senior Civil Judge was noted to be on medical leave and next date was fixed on 22.05.2015. On 22.05.2015, the learned Trial Court closed the chance for submission of written statements by the State defendant no. 1 to no. 6. Looking at the history of the case where it has been endorsed to different Courts of Senior Civil Judge due to transfer/promotion of the said Senior Civil Judges, the Court find that the failure to submit their written statements by the defendants/appellants could be due to the assignment of different AGAs’ to different Senior Civil Judges and submission has not been refuted by the counsel for the respondents. 12. I also find that the learned Trial Court had erred in not allowing the cross examination of the plaintiff witnesses, when the learned Government Advocate had appeared 45 minutes later than the given time. I find that this delay could have been condoned by the learned Court. 13. The Apex Court in Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha Vs. Tata (supra) held as follows:- “8. Every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. 13. The Apex Court in Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha Vs. Tata (supra) held as follows:- “8. Every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing. The appellants in the present case have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allowed to take a defence. In our opinion, Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC cannot be construed in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the respondent”. In Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Another Vs. Raghu Raj(supra), it was held that:- “13. It was submitted by the learned counsel that he appellants had engaged an advocate. They were, therefore, under the impression that the lawyer will take care of the case and will appear as and when the appeal will be called out for hearing. Even if it is assumed that there was default on the part of the advocate in not appearing at the time of hearing, the appellant should not suffer. For that reason also, the appeal should be allowed and rehearing should be ordered”. 14. In view of the above observation and cited cases of the Apex court, this Court finds it fit to allow the appeal and transfer the case back to the learned Trial Court for allowing the appellants to file their written statements, which should be done promptly and the Court may proceed with the case by giving them the chance to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses and adduce defendant evidence, if any. However, considering the fact that this case has been kept pending for a long time for various reasons, the learned Trial Court below is requested to dispose of this case expeditiously, preferably within 3(three) months. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed and RFA No. 19 of 2016 stands disposed of.