The dismissal of a suit based on limitation requires opportunity for parties to present evidence regarding the factual claims.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary. L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 5, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23.

2. None appeared for the other private respondents. Though, notice was deemed to be served upon the private respondents through the newspaper publication vide this Court’s Order dated 05.02.2018.

3. The instant appeal is filed u/s 17 (2) (b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, r/w Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC for setting aside the impugned Order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl in connection with Civil Suit No. 81/2011.

4. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant had filed Civil Suit No. 81/2011 on 19.08.2011 against the present private respondents and for cancellation of the order dated 15.11.1999, passed by respondent No.3, for the re-issue of (i) LSC No 2343/1985 in favour of respondent No-4,(ii) LSC No 709/1991 in favour of respondent No-6, (iii) LSC No 710/1991 in favour of respondent No-7, (iv) LSC No 712/1991 in favour of respondent No-8, (v) LSC No 713/1991 in favour of respondent No-9, (vi) LSC No 714/1991 in favour of respondent No-10, (vii) LSC No 715/1991 in favour of respondent No-4, (viii) LSC No 708/1991 in favour of respondent No-11 (ix) LSC No 718/1991 in favour of respondent No- 12, (x) LSC No 720/1991 in favour of respondent No-13 without the knowledge and consent of the appellant/plaintiff as some of the areas under the said house sites were covered by PP No 758/1976 issued in favour of the appellant/plaintiff .The suit was also filed against issuance of (i) LSC No 2581/1987 in favour of respondent No-19, (ii) LSC No 2582/1987 in favour of respondent No-20, (iii) LSC No 2583 in favour of respondent No- 21, (iv) LSC No 2584/1991 in favour of respondent No-22, (v) LSC No 2577/1987 in favour of respondent No-15, (vi) LSC No 2576/1987 in favour of respondent No-14, (vii) LSC No 2578/1987 in favour of respondent No 16, (viii) LSC No 2579/1987 in favour of respondent No-24 and (ix) LSC No 2580/1987 in favour of respondent No-18 by the respondent No-3 within the land covered by PP No 758/1976 belonging to the appellant/plaintiff.

5. The suit was contested by respondents raising their objections on the grounds amongst others like the suit being barred by res judicata and being barred by law of limitation. Accordingly on 05.07.2013, the following issues were framed:

i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style.

ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation, resjudicata/estoppel and acquiescence.

iii) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action against the defendants.

iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claim. If so to what extend?

6. The learned Senior Civil Judge after hearing both the parties passed the impugned Order dated 25.10.2016, and dismissed the Civil Suit No. 81/2011, by observing that the plaintiff had previously filed another suit i.e Eviction Suit No.6/2010 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge- II, Aizawl District on the same cause on action but the parties are different to some extent. The said Eviction Suit was rejected on 04.05.2011, at the initial stage, by finding that the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly the learned Senior Civil Judge also dismissed the instant Civil Suit 81/2011, on the grounds of the suit being barred by limitation by finding that the civil suit was filed against the defendants who hold LSC’s issued in the year 1987 and 1985.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had file