The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing parties with an opportunity to contest claims, the need for a reasonable and evidence-based assessment of interest, and the requirement to follow the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in adjudicating matters.

S.K. Kar, J.

1. This is an appeal presented on the strength of Clause (3) of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over the District Council Courts) Order, 1954 in order to Assail the judgment and order dated 25-9-2001 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Sub-Ordinate District Council Court, Aizawl in Money Suit No. 15 of 2001 which was affirmed by judgment and order dated 4-9-2002 passed by the District Council Court, Aizawl in R.F.A. Case No. 23 of 2001.

2. I have heard Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent, although notice was issued and accepted by the Court having been as served.

3. The respondent herein Smt. C. Laldingi instituted the suit, being Money Suit No. 15 of 2001, on 30-5-2001 against the present appellant Smt. Hmangaihzuali alleging that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- on 3-12-1992 and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 4-9-1993. That it was further agreed that the appellant/defendant will pay interest @ 10% per month till the amount is repaid. That neither the principal nor the interest was paid. Hence the suit.

4. The appellant failed to present before the trial Court her written statement and the suit was decreed ex parte for the recovery of principal amount of Rs, 1,40,000/- along with an equal amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- as an interest on lump sum thereby decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,80,000/-.

5. The appellant approached the First Appellate Court challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment and order of the trial Court raising several grounds along with a prayer for remanding the case for retrial in order to give an opportunity to the appellant to file written statement and to adduce evidence in order to counter the allegations made. The appellate Court, however, upheld the judgment of the trial Court instead and hence she has filed the present appeal.

6. The grounds of appeal as stated in the memorandum (memo) of appeal are as follows. That the Courts below erred in law and acted without jurisdiction, the Trial Court being only a Court of Magistrate First Class. That no court fees were paid and there was bar of limitation as the alleged date of borrowing was in the year 1992 and 1993 but the suit was presented only in the year 2001. That the reasonable opportunity was not given to the defendant-appellant by the trial Court and both the Courts acted in bias and there was violation of principle of justice, equity and good conscience, That the appellant pleaded before the trial Court verbally that she had not borrowed any money from the respondent-plaintiff but the Court refused to record her plea. That she was married to one Mr. P. Liana through whom she gave births to two daughters and two sons and she had the knowledge that her husband Mr. P. Liana borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from the defendant (sic) but had no knowledge of borrowing any other sum of Rs. 50,000/-. That Mr. P. Liana committed adultery and left her for which she was facing extreme financial hardships to maintain herself and children begotten through her former husband, that the interest was assessed by the trial Court most arbitrarily to be a sum equal to the principal. That it was wrongly held by the appellate Court that there was no denial on the part of the appellant in so far the question of borrowing the money was concerned although there was no such opinion recorded by the trial Court. That there was nothing in the record of trial Court to say whether there was any case of admission or denial by the appellant-defendant. That in any case the defendant/appellant should have been given an opportunity of contesting the claim on merit before fastening her with the liability in question. Accordingly, she submitted that the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below cannot be sustained.

7. Although the aforesaid grounds were raised in the memo of appeal but during the arguments the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has restricted his su