Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1278 (GAU)

Vanthuama, S/o Rozika v. Saingura Sailo

2025-08-05

MARLI VANKUNG

body2025
JUDGMENT MARLI VANKUNG, J. Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 1. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate for the state respondents submitted that being only the proforma respondent, they have nothing to submit in the instant matter. 2. The instant appeal filed u/s 96 CPC r/w section 151 CPC is against the ex- parte Order dated 02.11.2026, and for setting aside the ex-parte Judgment & Order/Decree dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge – II, Aizawl, in Title suit no. 38 of 2018. 3. A brief background of the case is that the appellant was the owner of LSC no. CAD 1853 of 2014, which was converted from a V.C pass bought by the appellant from Mr. Ringngheta in the year 1990. The case of the appellant is that after the purchase of the land he had used the said land for the purpose of farming and started rearing cattle and pigs. During the year 2014 the respondent No. 1 approach the appellant and told him that the neighboring land belongs to him and that a person/Mr. Hmangaiha, occupying the said land also doing so illegally. The respondent No.1 had in fact asked the appellant to help him to evict the said person. Thereafter, the appellant was given the copy of the Judgment & Order dated 26.07.2022 in the month of August 2022 which according to the appellant completely surprised him since he was never given any notice by the Court and had absolutely no knowledge of the proceedings in Civil suit No. 38 of 2018. 4. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, passed in Title Suit No. 38 of 2015, the appellate has prefer the instant appeal. 5. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court had erred in passing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, against the appellant in declaring the LSC No. CAD 1853 of 2014, issued to the appellant as null and void and in confirming the LSC No. 3069 of 1987, in favour of the private respondent. 5. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court had erred in passing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, against the appellant in declaring the LSC No. CAD 1853 of 2014, issued to the appellant as null and void and in confirming the LSC No. 3069 of 1987, in favour of the private respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant had no knowledge of the proceedings of the Title Suit No. 38 of 2015, and therefore, had no opportunity to refute the claims of the private respondent or defend himself against the claims of the private respondent. He submitted that unless the Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, is set aside and squashed, the appellant would suffer irreparable harm and injury. 6. Mr. JC. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the private respondent on the other hand submitted that the maintainability of the instant Regular First Appeal is itself questionable. He submitted that the impugned Judgment & Order was dated 28.07.2022 while the period of limitation to file an appeal against the said Judgment and Order is 30 (thirty) days, however, the Regular First Appeal was filed on 27.10.2022, which is beyond a period of 30 days, and therefore barred by the limitation period u/s 123 of the Indian LIMITATION ACT , 1963. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on the perusal of the contents of the Regular First Appeal, there is no prayer for condonation of delay. 7. The learned counsel for the private respondent No. 1 further submitted that in the instant Regular First Appeal, the appellant has not prayed for setting aside the exparte Order dated 02.11.2016, as such, when there is no challenge or prayer for setting aside the ex-parte Order dated 02.11.2016, the instant Regular First Appeal, for setting aside the Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022 cannot be sustained. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that on the perusal of the documents on record, it is clear that the private respondent No.1 had bought the landed property, i.e., LSC AZL 3069 of 1987 which was issued much before the issuance of the LSC to the appellant, who was issued the LSC No. CAD 1853 in 2014. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of a coordinated bench of this Court in Shri. Zampuii Vs. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of a coordinated bench of this Court in Shri. Zampuii Vs. The State Of Mizoram & Ors , reported in 2018 AIR (GAU) 72 wherein, a coordinated bench of this Court had observed that “The appellant’s land covered by house pass no. 539/1989 and the subsequent LSC no. 394/1990 covered land which had already been allotted by way of house pass no. 854/1974 of LSC no. 3126/1985, which were not cancelled by the authorities, the allotment of that portion of the plaintiff land, which encroach upon the land of the respondent No. 5 is not valid, to that extent the appellant’s house pass and LSC could not be valid.” 9 . The learned counsel has also relied on the Judgment of the coordinated bench of this Court in Smt. Saiziki Sailo Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., in case No. RSA/3/2002 , dated 18.06.2003, wherein, the coordinated bench of this Court have observed that the plaintiff was issued the suit land in her favor in the year 1977 and subsequently, the same land was allotted to the respondent/appellant in the year 1990. This Court held that after getting settlement the land becomes a heritable right u/s 12 of the Mizo District (Law and Revenue) Act, 1956 and that the settlement in favor of the plaintiff has not been quashed or cancelled till date as such the respondent was to hand over the vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff of within a period of 6 (six) months. 10 . This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and has also perused the documents on record. 11. It is noted that the instant appeal is filed against the ex-parte Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge – II, on 27.10.2022 under Section 123 of the Indian LIMITATION ACT , 1963, the period of limitation for filing a Regular First Appeal is 30 days. In view of the above, if the appellant is aggrieved by the said Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, he is required to file an appeal within the said limitation period, failing which, he also has the option of filing an application for condonation of the delay u/s 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963. In view of the above, if the appellant is aggrieved by the said Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, he is required to file an appeal within the said limitation period, failing which, he also has the option of filing an application for condonation of the delay u/s 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963. However, in the instant case no such step has been taken by the appellant and the learned counsel for the appellant has also not given any explanation as to why there was a delay in filing the Regular First Appeal. 12 . It is also noted that the appellant is aggrieved by the ex-parte Order dated 2.11.2016, wherein, the learned Trial Court had noted as follows:- “Plaintiff and Defts. No. 1 to 4 are present through their counsels. Deft No. 5 is once again absent. Today is fixed for submission of W/S. Counsel for the plaintiff prayed that the honourable Court to perceed the case ex-parte against the Deft No. 5 as sufficient chance has been given to him. On perusal of the case record, Deft No. 5 was in due reset of notice issued by this Court, however, has failed to give appearance till date. Thus, the instant case is perceeded ex-parte against the Deft No. 5. Fixed 1-12-16 for framing of issue. Give copy of the order to all concerned”. 13 . This Court, on perusal of the above order observes that the Trial Court noted that sufficient chance was given to the appellant to counter the claim made by the private respondent. It is also seen that the appellant in the instant Regular First Appeal has not prayed for setting aside the said ex-parte Order dated 02.11.2016. In view of the above, this Court finds that when there is no prayer for setting aside the ex-parte Order dated 02.11.2016, the instant prayer to set aside the subsequent ex-parte Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, is not sustainable. 14 . In view of the above, this Court finds that when there is no prayer for setting aside the ex-parte Order dated 02.11.2016, the instant prayer to set aside the subsequent ex-parte Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, is not sustainable. 14 . It is also noted that prima facie, there appear to be no grounds for setting aside the Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, wherein, the learned Trial Court had up-held the LSC No. 3069 of 1987 issued to the private respondent by noticing that the LSC No. CAD 1853 of 2014 was issued to the appellant much later than the LSC No. 3069 of 1987 wherein, the LSC No. CAD 1853 of 2014 was said to have been purchased from Mr. Ringngheta, in the year 1990. 15. This Court find it appropriate to refer to the Judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court in Zampuii Ralte Vs The State of Mizoram & Ors. (Supra) and in the case of Smt. Saiziki Sailo (Supra) wherein, the coordinate bench of this Court had observed in both the cases, that LSC’s which were issued earlier was to be given more importance than the LSC’s which were issued at a later date, by observing that the previous LSCs were not cancelled by the issuing authority. 16. In view of the above observations, this Court finds that the instant Regular First Appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2022, passed in Title Suit No. 38 of 2015, is liable to be dismissed. 17. For the aforesaid reasonings, this Court is constrained to dismiss the instant RFA No. 39 of 2022 and accordingly stands disposed of. No cost.