Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030001242025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/7/2025 Sh. Rosangliana S/o Lalhmingthanga (L), R/o Dawrpui, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Smt. Lalhriattiri and 6 Ors. D/o R. Zamawii, R/o Zemabawk, Aizawl, Mizoram2:Sh. Lalrinzuala 3:The State of Mizoram 4:The Director 5:The Asst. Director (Survey) 6:The Settlement Officer 7:The District Collecto Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 06.03.2025 Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This regular first appeal, under Section 96 of the C.P.C. read with Page No.# 2/6 Section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005, is directed against the order dated 03.12.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No. II, Aizawl, in Civil Suit No. 30/2022. 3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 03.12.2024, the learned Senior Civil Judge No. II, Aizawl has dismissed the suit before framing any issue on the ground of limitation. Background facts:- 4. The background facts leading to filing of this present appeal are briefly stated as under:- “The appellant herein had instituted one suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge No. II, Aizawl, being Civil Suit No. 30/2022, for declaration that the sale deed dated 03.11.2008 and ‘Ram Inleina’ dated 03.01.2008, allegedly made between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are null and void. Further, it is prayed for cancellation of the transfer of the ownership of the lands covered by the LSC No. AZL- 1509 of 1986 and the LSC No. AZL-173 of 1987 in the name of the respondent No. 1 and to revert the ownership of both the LSCs to the appellant. Then, preliminary hearing was conducted by the learned trial court and thereafter, without framing any issue and without recording evidence, arrived at a finding that the suit is barred by limitation and passed the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, dismissing the said civil suit.” 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred this regular first appeal before this court. Page No.# 3/6 Submissions:- 6. Mr. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the learned trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, yet, it is well settled that limitation is mix question of facts and law and that unless an issue is framed and decided the same on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial court not to have dismissed the suit. Mr. Lalramenga referring to the Order 14 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. submits that there is a requirement for framing an issue, but, the learned trial court without framing any issue had arrived at an erroneous finding that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. Mr. Lalramenga further submits that the son of the appellant, along with respondent No. 1, had committed fraud upon him and obtained his signature over a sale deed, projecting the same to a mortgaged deed for obtaining a loan. Believing his son, he had signed over the sale deed and based on which, the respondent No. 1 had mutated the land in his name illegally. Mr. Lalramenga further submits that the said land was acquired by the Government and awarded compensation for the same. It is the further submission of Mr. Lalramenga that the deed was prepared on 03.11.2008, but he discovered the fraud so committed upon him by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on 02.09.2020, when he inquired the matter through one RTI application. As such, though the deed was executed in the year 2008, yet, in view of the provision of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the limitation has to be calculated w.e.f. 02.09.2020, when the appellant came to know about the fraud committed upon him. Mr. Lalramenga also submits that since the learned trial court had dismissed the suit without framing any issues, the matter may be remanded to the learned trial court for framing an issue on the point of limitation and to decide the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 6.1. Mr. Lalramenga also submits that the appellant had also filed one interlocutory application for staying the impugned order till disposal of this appeal Page No.# 4/6 and that if the compensation amount is released in favour of the respondents then the matter would become infructuous. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that from his own pleadings it becomes apparent that the appellant came to know that his son, the respondent No. 2, obtained his signature in the sale deed and illegally sold the land covered by LSC No. AZL-1509 of 1986 and LSC No. AZL-173 of 1987 to respondent No. 1, after few months of obtaining his signature. But, he filed the suit only on 21.05.2024 and as such, the learned trial court had rightly decided the point of limitation and dismissed the suit. Mr. Lalfakawma, therefore, submits that there is no merit in this appeal and that the respondent is in peaceful passion of the suit land since long and that the appellant has no right over the same and therefore, has contended to dismiss the same. 7.1. However, Mr. Lalfakawma has suggested that the matter may be remanded back to the learned trial court for framing an issue, as no issue had been framed on the point of limitation by the learned trial court and thereafter, to afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and thereafter, to decide the same. Mr. Lalfakawma further submits that in the interlocutory application no order may be passed and he will not press the matter of releasing the compensation amount by the Deputy Commissioner till deciding the issue of limitation by the learned trial court. Discussion and Decision:- 8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No. II, Aizawl, in Civil Suit No. 30/2022. 9. It appears that the learned trial court, without framing any issue on the Page No.# 5/6 point of limitation had dismissed the suit of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the limitation is mix question of facts and law and Order 14 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. mandates framing of an issue in the civil suit on material proposition of law and facts. 10. It is to be noted here that in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia vs. Ivory Properties and Others, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 557, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue as to whether the issue of limitation can be heard as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2, held that if the issue of limitation is based on admitted fact, it can be decided as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2(b) of the C.P.C. However, if the facts surrounding the issue of limitation are disputed, then it can be decided as a preliminary issue. 11. In the instant case, the impugned order appears to have been passed in contravention of Order 14 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. It also appears that in the present case, the issue of limitation appears to be not a pure question of law and as such, it can be decided as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. In holding so, this court derives authority from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Mongia Realty And Buildwell Private Limited vs. Manik Sethi, reported in Civil Appeal No. 814/2022 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 26930/2019]. 12. Under the given facts and circumstances and also in view of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No. II, Aizawl, in Civil Suit No. 30/2022. The matter stands remanded to the learned trial court with a direction to frame a preliminary issue on the point of limitation and thereafter, afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and thereafter, to decide the same in accordance with law. Though, this court is not inclined to issue a direction to dispose of the civil suit within a definite time Page No.# 6/6 frame, yet the learned trial court is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the same as soon as practicable. 13. In terms of above, this regular first appeal stands disposed of at the motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant