JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Ms. Lalawmpuii Fanai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondents have landed property bearing Periodic Patta No. 595/2006 and Periodic Patta No. 864/2010 located at Sairilzokhamhnuai-Sairang Vairengte. The appellants had approached the respondents to hand over some portion of their land for the purpose of widening NH-44 ‘A’. For this purpose, an agreement was made between the appellants and the respondents, stating that the respondents have agreed to pass through their lands for widening of NH-44 ‘A’ between 6.60 – 6.700 kms and received a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on 15.02.2013 for compensation. The agreement was signed by both the parties. After receiving a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, the respondents approached the learned Senior Civil Judge by filing Damage Suit No. 3/2014 for declaring that an agreement dated 15.02.2013 is null and void and the appellant Nos. 5 & 6 were in competent authority to make an agreement and for the appellant No. 7, i.e., District Collector to make an assessment as per law. It was also contended that the appellants had also used the respondents’ land covered by Periodic Patta No. 864/2010 as dumping ground, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs/respondents, which caused severe damage to the plaintiffs/respondents’ land as well as the plaintiffs/respondents’ crops.

3. On filing the Damage Suit No. 3/2014, the appellants were asked to file their written statements on 24.11.2014. However, on failure of submission of written statements, the learned Trial Court on 22.05.2015, closed the chance for submission of written statements by the appellants/defendant Nos. 5 & 6. Thereafter, the following issues were framed in the absence of defendants, which are as follows:-

“1) Whether the defendant/appellant Nos. 1- 7 had caused damage to the Plaintiff’s lands covered by Periodic Patta No. 595/2006 and Periodic Patta No. 864/2010 or not.

2) Whether the assessment made by the Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in para-11 of the Plaint is acceptable or not?

3) Whether “Inremsiamna” dt. 15.02.2013 was valid agreement or not?

4) Whether the Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is entitled to the relief claimed. If so, to what extent.”

4. The plaintiffs produced 3 (three) witnesses to prove their case on 18.03.2016. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 was also present on that day and had prayed for time to refresh their memory for cross examination of the examination-in-chief of the 3 (three) witnesses. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court had fixed 2:30 p.m for the cross examination. However, the learned standing counsel for the defendants appeared on 3:15 p.m. and therefore, the learned Trial Court closed the chance of cross examination of the 3 (three) plaintiff witnesses by the defendants. The learned Trial Court on 06.06.2016 passed the impugned ex-parte judgment & order. Aggrieved by this, hence the appeal.

5. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the appellants submits that they are aggrieved by the first part of the judgment, which holds that the agreement dated 15.02.2013 is not valid in the eye of law. She also submits that the learned Trial Court had not given sufficient chance to the appellants for submission of their written statements and had proceeded with the case and decided all the issues in favour of the respondents/defendants. The reason that the learned counsel for the appellants had delayed in submission of their written statements was due to the frequent transfer of the learned Senior Civil Judges, who were to try this case. That the Additional/Assistant Government Advocates were allotted different Senior Civil Judges to defend the State Government and the endorsement of the case to different Courts of Senior Civil Judges and also on the new appointment of Government Advocates, had caused the delay in filling the written statements, since the d