The central legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of the contesting parties should not be abruptly foreclosed due to the default of the Plaintiff's counsel, and the trial court should offer an opportunity to all parties to file written statements.

H. Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 8 and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, for the Respondent No. 3.

2. In challenge is the judgment and decree dated 1-2-2011 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge No. 3, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 113 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the suit of the Plaintiff, the Appellant herein is dismissed and counter claim of the Respondent No. 3 is decreed.

3. The brief facts for the purpose of this appeal may be placed as under:

The Appellant herein as Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 113 of 2010 against the Respondents herein as Defendants for declaration of his right, title and interest in the plot of land covered under LSC No. 132 of 1973 described fully in the plaint. The Appellant herein is the son of C. Thangzuala, since deceased. Appellant's predecessor in interest said Thangzuala was the owner and possessor of the land covered by LSC No. 132 of 1973 while said Thangzuala was in his dead bed declared in presence of various others that Appellant is his legal heir in respect of LSC No. 132 of 1973. Though the LSC was not mutated in the Appellant's name, he obtained heir ship certificate No. 252 of 2010 in respect of the LSC on 17-5-2010. Appellant's father died in the year 2001. In the month of March 2009 Appellant received a telephonic information from an unknown person that the land under LSC No. 132 of 1973 was mortgaged in his favour by Respondent No. 1 for a loan and accordingly the LSC was muted in his name since the Respondent No. 1 was unable to repay the loan. An inquiry being conducted by the Appellant it came to his knowledge that the LSC No. 132 of 1973 was stealthily taken away by the Respondent No. 1 herein with the Respondent No. 2 who were sisters to the Appellant and the same was muted in the name of Respondent No. 1 on 29-5-2004 by forging the signature of the Appellant's father who died in the year 2001. The Respondent No. 1 mortgaged the land under the LSC as indicted above with Respondent No. 8 for Rs. 10 lacs on 13-7-2004 while the Respondent No. 2 mortgaged the aforesaid land in favour of Respondent No. 3 on 12-1-2007 for Rs. 5 Lacs. It would be appropriate to mention that after the death of the Appellant's father in the year 2001, the LSC which stood in his name was some how transferred in the name of the Respondent No. 1 and then Respondent No. 2 by making applications perhaps with the appropriate authority.

4. On account of such transfer of the land under the LSC as aforesaid the Appellant as Plaintiff filed the suit as indicated above for declaration of his right, title and interest in the land on the basis of the heirship certificate issued in his favour on 17-5-2010 and also on the factum of being the legal heir of Thangzuala, since deceased.

5. On filing of the suit the trial court issued summons to the Respondents asking each of the Respondent to file written statement. Defendant-Respondent No. 3 herein filed written statement and also filed counter claim in respect of the land covered by LSC No. 132 of 1973. During the pendency of the suit, on the application of the Respondent No. 8 he was impleaded as one of the Defendants in the suit. The suit proceeded for filing of the written statement by the Defendants and also for filing of the written statement by the Plaintiff in respect of the counter claim made by Respondent No. 3. The suit was posted on 21-12-2010 and the trial court passed the following order:

Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff is present. As prior permission of this Court, ld. counsels for the Defendant Nos. 3 and 8 are on tour. Hence adjourned the Court as follows-Fixed 1-2-2011 for W/S

On 1-2-2011, learned Addl. A. G. and counsel for the Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 remained present but all others parties to the suit remained absent without showing any cause. Mr. M. M. Ali, lea