JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for all the respondents. This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib District, Kolasib in Review Petition No. 2/2019 arising out of Civil Suit No. 2/2018. 2. Brief facts essential for disposal of the instant appeal is that the appellants as plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 2/2018 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib District, Kolasib claiming amongst others for a decree to declare them as the legal and bonafide owners of the Suit land occupied by the respondents who were arrayed as defendants amongst others. The appellants also prayed for a direction to the respondents for payment of rental compensation that was assessed by the Defendant No. 2 in their favor and communicated vide letter dated 01.04.2015. 3. Against the Civil Suit, the respondents as defendants did not file their written statement. The appellants on their part examined one (1) witness and who was also cross-examined by the Assistant Govt. Advocate appearing for the defendants. Consequently, the Trial Court decided to proceed with the case ex-parte in accordance with Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and thereafter disposed of the Suit vide Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2019. 4. Aggrieved with the same, the respondents through the respondent No. 2 preferred Review Petition No. 2/2019 on the ground that the State defendants were not given opportunity to contest the Suit, there was concealment of material facts and that there was non-joinder of necessary parties. The Review Petition was allowed vide Order dated 28.10.2020 by recalling the Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2019 and restoring the Civil Suit to file. Aggrieved with the same, the plaintiffs as appellants are before this Court. 5. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel by referring to the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal submits that the Lower Court failed to take into consideration that it was solely the respondent No. 1 who had filed the Review Petition without impleading the remaining respondents who were arrayed as defendant No. 1, 3 to 10 in the Civil Suit. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel by referring to the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal submits that the Lower Court failed to take into consideration that it was solely the respondent No. 1 who had filed the Review Petition without impleading the remaining respondents who were arrayed as defendant No. 1, 3 to 10 in the Civil Suit. The same goes to show that the other defendants in the Civil Suit are not aggrieved with the Judgment & Order passed by the Senior Civil Judge in the Civil Suit. That no order or decree has been passed against the respondent No. 1 and therefore, there was no reason for the respondent No. 1 to file the Review Petition. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Lower Court took into consideration the letter dated 11.04.2018 to come to the conclusion that notice was not served upon the defendants except the defendant No. 7. The same however does not mean that copy of the plaint was not furnished to the other defendants. The Lower Court also wrongly concluded that the appellants failed to produce any evidence to show that a copy of the plaint/notice was sent to the defendants whereas, the onus of proof that no copy of plaint was received is on the respondents/defendants. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Court in the Civil Suit had come to a definite finding that a copy of the plaint was duly served to the defendants on 07.03.2018. He therefore submits that the learned Lower Court while considering the Review Petition acted as an Appellate Court which otherwise is not permissible in law. Therefore, having regard to the limited scope of entertaining a Review Petition as prescribed by Order 47 Rule 1, CPC, the impugned Order dated 28.10.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 2/2019 should be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (1) Sasi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives -Vs-Aravindakshan Nair & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 692 and (2) D.R. Somayajulu, Secretary, Diesel Loco Shed And South Eastern Railway House Building Cooperative Society Limited, Vishakapatnam & Ors. -Vs- Attili Appala Swamy & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 390 . 6. Ms. Linda L. FAmbawl, learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand submits that the learned Lower Court had rightly passed the Order dated 28.10.2020 in Review Petition No. 2/2019. -Vs- Attili Appala Swamy & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 390 . 6. Ms. Linda L. FAmbawl, learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand submits that the learned Lower Court had rightly passed the Order dated 28.10.2020 in Review Petition No. 2/2019. She submits that all the defendants were not put to notice by serving them a copy of the plaint except Defendant No. 7. She submits that as per the learned Lower Court while passing the Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2019, it was noted that copy of the plaint was duly served to the defendants on 07.03.2018. However on 07.03.2018, only a copy of the plaint was furnished to the Assistant Govt. Advocate who then sought for instructions by enclosing a copy of the plaint to the Defendant No. 7 i.e., the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, Kolasib. It is therefore clear that notice was not sent/received and/or copy of the plaint was not furnished to the remaining defendants. Under the circumstance, the learned Lower Court was fully justified in recalling the Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2019 within the scope of “for any other sufficient reason” as provided under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC. 7. The learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that the plaintiffs had also concealed material facts while filing the Civil Suit inasmuch as the Village Council Passes based on which the plaintiffs were asserting their rights had already been cancelled and that departmental land lease was issued to the defendants concerned for occupation of the land. Therefore, there was no question of paying rental compensation to the plaintiffs. She also submits that the appellants at any rate are not prejudiced with the restoration of the Civil Suit to file. On the other hand, had the Review Petition been dismissed, the respondents would have been greatly prejudiced. The learned Addl. Advocate General lastly submits that the Review Petition can be filed by any party aggrieved by an order from which a review lies. Therefore, in order to speed up the matter, the respondent No. 1 on behalf of all the other respondents had filed the Review Petition and therefore, the Review Petition is very much sustainable and the order passed by the Review Court may not be interfered with by this Court. 8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. As may be noticed, by filing this appeal, the appellants have sought for setting aside the Order dated 28.10.2020 by which the Review Petition No. 2/2019 was allowed and the Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2019 was recalled and the Suit restored to file. The consolidated ground urged for recalling the impugned Order is that the Review Petition was filed by only one of the respondent/defendant and against whom, no order or decree was passed. It may be seen that Defendant No. 1 in the Civil Suit is the State of Mizoram, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram. In the Review Petition, the review petitioner is the State of Mizoram, represented by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department. Section 114 and also Order 47 Rule 1, CPC provides that any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which an appeal has not been preferred amongst others may prefer a review of the Judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. The State of Mizoram was indeed a party to the Civil Suit and was stated to be represented by the Chief Secretary. The Review Petition was filed by the State of Mizoram and represented by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Revenue Department. Considering the relevant provisions of the Transaction of Business Rules framed by the Govt. of Mizoram, there is no dispute that an Under Secretary and one above the said rank can represent and be signatories on behalf of Govt. of Mizoram. Moreover, compensation towards rent etc., if found entitled to the plaintiffs, the same will have to be paid by the State Government for their occupation of the land of the plaintiffs/appellants. Therefore, this Court finds no merit on the ground taken in this regard. 9. Another ground taken by the appellants is that the letter dated 11.04.2018 written by the Assistant Govt. Advocate to the District Collector, Kolasib District, Kolasib cannot be the basis to arrive at a conclusion that copy of the plaint had not been sent to the other defendants. 9. Another ground taken by the appellants is that the letter dated 11.04.2018 written by the Assistant Govt. Advocate to the District Collector, Kolasib District, Kolasib cannot be the basis to arrive at a conclusion that copy of the plaint had not been sent to the other defendants. It may be seen that against the Review Petition, the appellants/plaintiffs did not file their response or objection stating that sufficient copies of the plaint had been served to the Assistant Govt. Advocate. Reference has been made by the Trial Court in its Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2019 that the plaint copy was duly served to the Defendants on 07.03.2018. On perusal of the Order dated 07.03.2018 of the learned Trial Court in the Civil Suit, the same goes to show that only a copy of the plaint was served to the learned Assistant Govt. Advocate whereas, there are as many as ten (10) defendants arrayed in the Civil Suit. The letter dated 11.04.2018 also referred in the Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2019 also goes to show that only one (1) copy of the plaint was enclosed in the said letter and which was addressed to the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, Kolasib. It was therefore the finding and opinion of the Review Court that it would be unjust and unfair if a decision is made without affording a just opportunity to the Defendants of being heard and to contest the Suit and therefore, there existed grounds for reviewing the Judgment & Order passed in the Civil Suit. Such finding in the considered view of this Court cannot be faulted with. 10. Thus, upon due consideration of the matter in its entirety, I do not find merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. As for the authorities relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the same are not found to be applicable in the factual background of the instant case and therefore, they are not being referred to. 11. The appeal is thus disposed of. Registry shall send back the LCR immediately.