Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. P. Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned counsel for the State Government.

2. The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 227 of the Contitution of India has made a challenge to the Judgment & Order dated 24.06.2011 passed in Money Suit No. 47/2011 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction.

3. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner was the sole distributor of online and paper lottery in the State of Mizoram on the basis of two agreements dated 01.07.2008 (for online lotteries) and 26.05.2009 (for paper lotteries) executed by the petitioner and the State of Mizoram. The petitioner's counsel submits that the respondents filed Money Suit No.47/2011 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl alleging that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the above agreements and prayed for a decree for payment of Rs. 2,00,39,794/- with interest.

4. The Trial Court thereafter passed ex-parte Judgment & Order and Decree dated 24.06.2011 in Money Suit No. 47/2011, by decreeing that the petitioner was to pay to the respondents, the sum of Rs.2,00,39,794/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 15.04.2011, i.e. the date of institution of the suit till final payment. Cost of Rs.21,000/- was also directed to be paid with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of the Judgment & Order till final payment.

5. The petitioner's counsel submits that the Judgment & Order dated 24.06.2011 and decree dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl in Money Suit No. 47/2011 should be set aside on the ground that no notice was received by the petitioner and that there is nothing on record to show that there was deemed service of the notice to the petitioner in respect of the said money suit. The petitioner's counsel submits that as the respondents had filed Execution Case No. 82/2013 for execution of the Judgment & Order and Decree dated 24.06.2011 passed in Money Suit No. 47/2011, the petitioners' came to know about the impuged Judgment & Order and Decree dated 24.06.2011.

6. The petitioner's counsel submits that as per the terms of the two agreements made between the parties, the parties are to refer any differences or disputes arising out of the agreements to arbitration. Accordingly, the respondents should have referred the matter to arbitration and not gone to a Civil Court in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreements. He also submits that the question of the petitioner having a liability in favour of the respondents is disputed. The petitioner's counsel thus submits that as there is inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Civil Court to take up the dispute between the parties, the impugned Judgment & Order and Decree should be set aside.

7. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioners were issued notice with regard to the amount of liability to be paid by them. He also submits that the petitioners had also written letters asking for time to pay their liability. However, the petitioners have not paid their liability till date. The Government Advocate also submits that the agreements made between the parties contains a clause whereby, the parties can approach the Civil Court at Aizawl with regard to any differences or disputes between them arising out of the agreements. The respondent counsel also submits that the respondents tried to recover outstanding dues from the petitioner against the Bank Guarantees submitted by the petitioner. However, in view of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court of Judicature at Madras, the Bank Guarantee could not be encashed. He submits that the above also clearly shows that there was disputes/differences between the parties. However, as the petitioner has also not availed of the arbitration clause, he cannot now claim that the dispute should be de