The court's decision emphasized the importance of proper exercise of jurisdiction and the legality of the impugned order under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

R.B. Misra, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Guite, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. The present revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section151 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by Smt. Lucy Lalrinthari, Addl. District Magistrate, Judicial, Aizawl in FAO No. 1 of 2007 whereby the order dated 16.2.2007 passed by Shri Lalbiakzama, Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner arising out of Civil Suit No. 38 of 2006 has not been interfered with and further by the impugned order dated 29.3.2007 learned Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial), Aizawl has directed the trial court not to pass any further relief to either parties onward until final disposal of the main suit on merit.

3. It appears that the Petitioners (Defendants) had approached earlier by preferring an appeal before this Court against the same impugned order dated 29.3.2007 (passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial) passed in FAO No. 1 of 2007 arising out of C.M. Appln. No. 14 of 2007 in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2006). When the Petitioners came to know that vide Section 31 of Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 notified on 26.4.2006 the provision of appeal was repealed, then a prayer was made to make an amendment and accordingly the present revision petition has been preferred.

4. In order to adjudicate the present revision petition it is necessary to give the factual background of the case as below:

(i) It appears one Bethesda Rural Hospital (for short, the Hospital) was established in a rented house at Bawngkawn, Aizawl, Mizoram, sometime in April 2003 at the instance of opposite party/Respondent/Plaintiff, by borrowing a sum of Rs. 7,44,800/- from the Petitioner No. 1/Defendant No. 1 after keeping the assets of the 'Hospital' as mortgage against the loan. The Sacred Heart Society (for short, the 'Society'), a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, stood as surety for the loan. An Agreement dated 28.01.2004 was executed to this effect. The Petitioner No. 1/Defendant No. 1 as an Advisor to the 'Society' also agreed in principle that the 'society' shall take over the mortgaged assets in the eventuality of default however, even after the agreed period expired the Respondent/Plaintiff failed to repay the loan amount.

(ii) The 'Society' and the Respondent/Plaintiff entered into an Agreement dated 07.02.2005 inter alia other points that the entire assets of Hospital shall be handed to the Society, and latter one shall make payment of an honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent/Plaintiff if the Hospital runs smoothly with profit. After taking over the charge of the 'Hospital', the 'Society' changed the name of the Hospital to Bethesda Hospital and Research Centre (for short, the BHRC). In pursuant to the said Agreement dated 07.02.2005, the Petitioner No. 1/Defendant No. 1 and the Society entered into an another Agreement dated 4.11.2005 owning to repay the liabilities.

(iii) The Society made sincere efforts for improvement of 'BHRC' by generating finances and for its revival by way of employment of experts and installation of machineries, knowing well that 'BHRC' is not profit oriented. However, by a resolution dated 31.01.2006 the Board of Directors of Society decided not to continue the payment w.e.f. January 2006 to Respondent/Plaintiff due to financial constraints faced by the 'BHRC' and such resolution was endorsed by the resolution dated 8.4.2006 of Governing Body of 'BHRC'.

(iv) In reference to said Agreement dated 7.2.2005 the Respondent/Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 38 of 2006 on 24.11.2006 against the officials of the Society before the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, for payment of the arrear of honorarium of Rs. 1,00,000/- of ten months (January to October) and thereafter pay the honorarium regularly to the Plaintiff at interim during the pendency of the case. The Respondent/Plaint