IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a suit filed beyond the limitation period stipulated under the Limitation Act cannot be entertained by the court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 2-6.

2. This is an appeal under Section 96 of CPC read with Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2021 for setting aside the Order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib in Civil Suit No. 3/2018.

3. The case of the appellant in brief is that the appellant land covered by his Periodic Patta 1903 of 1976 (bifurcated into two PPs in 2006) is overlapped by the Land Settlement Certificate W-42 of 1987 belonging to the respondent No.1. The appellant/plaintiff came to know of such encroachment of his land, in the year 2004 and the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by such encroachment filed the Civil Suit No. 3/2018 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib for an order of cancellation of the Land Settlement Certificate No. W-42 of 1987. While the Civil Suit was pending at the pre hearing stage, the appellant found his lost diary and from the contends of his diary, he discovered some mistake in the dates mentioned in his plaint.He then had filed an application in CMA No. 18/2020, for amendment of para 5 of the plaint in which the date of knowledge of the encroachment, cause of action, was to be changed from the year 2004 to 2008. The CMA No.18/2020 was however dismissed on 15.12.2020. The learned trial court opined that the copy of papers of the diary merely indicate that the plaintiff went to Phapheng with regard to taking measurement on respect of land that may be destroyed in the widening of the road, which did not throw light of which date the plaintiff came to know about the alleged encroachment of his land. The learned trial court found the submission made by the plaintiff unsubstantiated and that it would be unjust especially when issues were already framed and the hearing was currently being heard on the question of limitation period of filing the suit. Subsequently, the Civil Suit No.3/2018 was also dismissed on 20.04.2021 on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Civil Suit No.3/2018, the appellant is now before this court.

5. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court had erred in dismissing the CMA No.18/2020 on 15.12.2020 and had erred in passing the impugned Order dated 20.04.2021 in the connected Civil Suit No.3/2018, which was due to the rejection of the application for the amendment of the plaint in CMA No.18/2020 on 15.12.2020.

6. The learned counsel also submits that he had filed a Regular First Appeal on 8.10.2021, against the dismissal of CMA No.18/2020 order dated 15.12.2020, along with a prayer for condonation of delay in I.A. (C) No.88/2021. This court allowed the condonation of delay application on 12.12.2021, however, since the Civil Suit No. 3/2018 was already dismissed on 20.04.2021, the RFA No.31/2021 was withdrawn with the permission to file afresh.

7. The learned counsel submits that if the impugned order dated 20.04.2021 in Civil Suit No.3/2018 is not set aside the appellant will not be given the opportunity to adduce evidence before the trial court to prove that the respondent has encroached upon his landed property on the issuance of the Land Settlement Certificate No.W-42 of 1987 to the respondent No.1 by the State respondent Nos. 2-6.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned trial court had erred in not allowing the appellant to amend his plaint and had wrongfully dismissed the CMA No.18/2020on 15.12.2020. That an application for amendment of the plaint can be filed at any time and thus he has prayed that this court may allow the amendment of the plaint by setting aside the dismissal order dated 15.12.2020 in CMA No.18/2020 and consequently set aside the impugned Order dated 20.04.2021 in the connected Civil Suit No.3/2018.

9. In sup