The requirement to frame issues in accordance with procedural law is essential for ensuring fairness and consistency in trial procedures, as mandated by the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

(MARLI VANKUNG, J.)

Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Judicial Officer, District Council Court, Chakma Autonomous District Council, Kamalanagar in Case No. 26/2020, wherein, the learned Trial Court had passed the judgment and order against the appellant and wherein the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, CADC was directed to cancel the pass of the appellant and issue him a new pass.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that the respondent as the plaintiff had instituted the Case No. 26/2020 before the District Council Court, CADC, Kamalanagar by stating that in the year 1998 the appellant’s son-in-law, who was working as LDC in the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, CADC had illegally increased the landed portion of the LSC Pass No. 8/88 belonging to the appellant from 24 ft to 30 ft. It was alleged that the appellant who was arrayed as defendant No. 1, had encroached upon the land of the respondent/plaintiff covered under LSC Pass No. 8/88. The learned Trial Court by taking cognizance of the petition had issued an interim order dated 13.10.2020, directing the appellant to stop any kind of construction on the disputed land covered under the said LSC Pass No. 8/88 located at Kamalanagar–I. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court allowed both the parties to adduce their evidences and also call for the original record registered under Kamalanagar–I from the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, CADC in order to verify the land plots of the parties. The learned Trial Court had also called for the detailed reports of the land plots of the petitioner from the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, CADC, wherein the report was submitted on 23.10.2021. The learned Trial Court by relying on the report submitted and the evidence adduced by both the parties had passed the impugned Judgment dated 21.10.2021. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

4. Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside since no issues were framed by the learned Trial Court, as mandated under Order XIV Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the Mizoram Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2007 had amended Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 wherein, it was held that the Court of Civil Procedure, 1908 should be followed in spirit in all the Civil Courts. The learned counsel submits that even though the Code of Civil Procedure is to be followed in spirit, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in its Order dated 07.09.2017, in the case Mr. Vanlalruala Vs. H.S. Ronghaka in RFA No. 11/2017, had disposed of the appeal by observing that no issues or preliminary issues had been framed by the learned Trial Court and had accordingly remanded back the case to the Trial Court for framing of issues. The learned counsel thus submitted that since in the present appeal, it is seen that no preliminary issues were framed by the learned Trial Court, the matter may also be remanded back to the learned Trial Court and framing issues on the facts and law involved in the Case No. 26/2020.

5. Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable in the Autonomous District Council areas only in spirit and is not to be applied in letters as per Rule 41 of The Pawi-Lak