Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030007622024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/17/2024 Lalrindika and Anr. H/o Malsawmdawngi, R/o Saron Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram 2: Malsawmdawng VERSUS Smt Jenny Laltlanmawii Proprietor, Anna Jennie, Bazarpui, New Market, Aizawl, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalrempuia Advocate for the Respondent : K Remruatfela Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/201/2024 Lalrindika and Anr. H/o Malsawmdawngi R/o Saron Veng Aizawl Mizoram 2: Malsawmdawngi W/o Lalrindika R/o Saron Veng Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS Smt Jenny Laltlanmawii Proprietor Anna Jennie Page No.# 2/6 Bazarpui New Market Aizawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalrempuia Advocate for the Respondent : K Remruatfela B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 20.05.2025 Heard Ms. Vanlalhriatpuii, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Remruatfela, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) - III Aizawl, Mizoram in Money Suit No. 137 of 2023 wherein, the revision petitioner No. 2/plaintiff No. 2 in the Money Suit No. 137 of 2023, was dropped only on the ground that she was a citizen of Myanmar and had failed to state any permission as required u/s 83 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. Ms. Vanlalhriatpuii, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revision Petitioner No. 1 is a resident of Saron Veng, Aizawl belonging to the Schedule Tribe of Mizo community while the Revision Petitioner No. 2 is a citizen of Myanmar and not an alien enemy before or at the time of filing the Money Suit No. 137 of 2023. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner No. 2 had been running a business in selling shoes, sneaker, etc. since 2007 and was Page No.# 3/6 married to the petitioner No. 1 on 10.05.2022, and has been resided at Saron Veng Aizawl till date. The petitioners/plaintiffs had filed the Money Suit No. 137 of 2023 against the respondent/defendant for recovery of Rs. 11,05,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs five thousand) only with an interest rate of 12% p.a. However, during the pendency of the Money Suit, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Order dated 06.03.2024 by stating that the petitioner No. 2/plaintiff No. 2 cannot sue the respondent/ defendant in light of section 23 Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The learned counsel submitted that on the perusal of section 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the country of Myanmar is not an alien enemy and that the Government of India and the Government of Myanmar are not at war and therefore, the petitioner cannot be deemed to be an alien enemy residing in a foreign country. She further submitted that the revision petitioner No. 2 is not bound to have permission from the Central Government u/s 83 Code of Civil Procedure and that she can sue the citizen of India in any Court competent to trial the suit within the territory of India. In support of her submission, she has produced an article downloaded from Wikipedia regarding India-Myanmar relations wherein, it has been mentioned as following:- That ‘India and Myanmar relation officially got underway after the Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1951.’ And further it was stated ‘During 2017 visit to Nay Pyi Taw, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that India would offer gratis/no cost visas to or Myanmar citizens Page No.# 4/6 visiting India’. ‘In 2013, India provided a loan of about 500 Million US Dollar to Myanmar for its development; India and Myanmar have also agreed to co- operate militarily in order to help modernized Myanmar’s military’. ‘In 2020, India gifted the Myanmar Navy its first submarine, a kilo class (INS Sindhuvir) attack submarine which has been refurbished and modernized by Hinduistan Shipyard Limited’. 5. Mr. K. Remruatfela, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is a foreigner being of Myanmar origin and cannot be a party in the Money Suit No. 137 of 2023. He submitted that u/s 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is only the alien friend who may sue in any Court as if they were citizens of India, however, the country of Myanmar is not an alien friend. He submits that the country of Myanmar cannot be considered an alien friend because they are required to have a Visa to enter India and it is only the countries of Bhutan, Maldives & Nepal, who are allowed Visa free entry to India. He further submitted that the Indian Government has also decided to enhance surveillance and therefore, the Indian Government has decided to construct a fence along the entire 1643 km long Indo-Myanmar border to facilitate better surveillance. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has submitted a copy of the article written in India Express dated 06.02.2024. He further submitted that as per the passport (Entry into India) Act 1920, a person who is entering into India without having a passport issued to him can be arrested u/s 4 and can be directed to be removed from India Page No.# 5/6 as per Section 5 of the Act. 6. He has also relied on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Engkunga Vs R.L. Dinpui reported in 2014 for GLR 355 wherein, the Court had held that no judgment could be passed on a cause which is illegal and is criminal offence. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent No. 2 is also carrying out an illegal trade by importing shoes and other materials without the requisite permission. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this Court finds it fit to reproduce the provisions of section 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:- “Alien enemies residing in India with the permission of the Central Government, and alien friends, may sue in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit, as if they were citizens of India, but alien enemies residing in India without such permission, or residing in a foreign country, shall not sue in any such Court. Explanation.-- Every person residing in a foreign country, the Government of which is at war with India and carrying on business in that country without a licence in that behalf granted by the Central Government, shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be an alien enemy residing in a foreign country.” 8. On perusal of the said section 83 C.P.C, it is seen that the section clearly provides that alien friends may sue in any Court. It is seen that though there is no specific list as to which country should be consider an alien friend, however, since India is not at war with Myanmar, it cannot be held that they should be considered as alien enemies which require a permission of the Central Government to sue in any Court of India. It can be seen from the Page No.# 6/6 explanation given in the Act that to be considered an enemy country, the country is required to be at war with India. There is no record of any hostility between the two countries. This Court is also of the considered view that it is not necessary that an alien friend should consist of only those countries which are allowed Visa free entry into India. This interpretation is found to be extremely narrow and without any basis. This Court also finds that the Judgment cited by the learned counsel in Engkunga Vs R.L. Dinpuia (Supra) is not applicable in the present case, since the money suit is for the recovery of Rs. 11,05,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh five thousand) from the appellant and not with regards to any illegal or criminal offence. 9. In view of the above submissions, this Court finds it fit to set aside and quash the Order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III Aizawl in Money Suit No. 137/2023. 10. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition No. 17 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant