IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a Review Petition must ensure all parties are given a fair opportunity to contest the suit, emphasizing the importance of due process in judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for all the respondents. This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib District, Kolasib in Review Petition No. 2/2019 arising out of Civil Suit No. 2/2018.

2. Brief facts essential for disposal of the instant appeal is that the appellants as plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 2/2018 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib District, Kolasib claiming amongst others for a decree to declare them as the legal and bonafide owners of the Suit land occupied by the respondents who were arrayed as defendants amongst others. The appellants also prayed for a direction to the respondents for payment of rental compensation that was assessed by the Defendant No. 2 in their favor and communicated vide letter dated 01.04.2015.

3. Against the Civil Suit, the respondents as defendants did not file their written statement. The appellants on their part examined one (1) witness and who was also cross-examined by the Assistant Govt. Advocate appearing for the defendants. Consequently, the Trial Court decided to proceed with the case ex-parte in accordance with Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and thereafter disposed of the Suit vide Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2019.

4. Aggrieved with the same, the respondents through the respondent No. 2 preferred Review Petition No. 2/2019 on the ground that the State defendants were not given opportunity to contest the Suit, there was concealment of material facts and that there was non-joinder of necessary parties. The Review Petition was allowed vide Order dated 28.10.2020 by recalling the Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2019 and restoring the Civil Suit to file. Aggrieved with the same, the plaintiffs as appellants are before this Court.

5. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel by referring to the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal submits that the Lower Court failed to take into consideration that it was solely the respondent No. 1 who had filed the Review Petition without impleading the remaining respondents who were arrayed as defendant No. 1, 3 to 10 in the Civil Suit. The same goes to show that the other defendants in the Civil Suit are not aggrieved with the Judgment & Order passed by the Senior Civil Judge in the Civil Suit. That no order or decree has been passed against the respondent No. 1 and therefore, there was no reason for the respondent No. 1 to file the Review Petition. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Lower Court took into consideration the letter dated 11.04.2018 to come to the conclusion that notice was not served upon the defendants except the defendant No. 7. The same however does not mean that copy of the plaint was not furnished to the other defendants. The Lower Court also wrongly concluded that the appellants failed to produce any evidence to show that a copy of the plaint/notice was sent to the defendants whereas, the onus of proof that no copy of plaint was received is on the respondents/defendants. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Court in the Civil Suit had come to a definite finding that a copy of the plaint was duly served to the defendants on 07.03.2018. He therefore submits that the learned Lower Court while considering the Review Petition acted as an Appellate Court which otherwise is not permissible in law. Therefore, having regard to the limited scope of entertaining a Review Petition as prescribed by Order 47 Rule 1, CPC, the impugned Order dated 28.10.2020 passed in Review Petition No. 2/2019 should be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the following authorities:-

(1) Sasi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives -Vs-Aravindakshan Nair & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 692 and

(2) D.R. Somayajulu, Secre