Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030001662025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA No. 09/2025 1. Mohammed Jaynal Ahmed, S/o – Mohammed Abdul Manik, R/o - Village Banugram, P.O. – Nilambazar, P.S. – Nilambazar, Dist. – Sribhumi (Karimganj), State - Assam, PIN - 788722. 2. Late Sh. Gauch Uddin Mira, Represented by his wife Smt. Khayatun Necha Mira, R/o- Village Eraligool, Patarkandi, Dist. – Sribhumi (Karimganj), State – Assam, PIN – 788723. … APPELLANTS. -Versus- 1. Vanlalfelpuia Royte, Chairman, Northeast Consultancy Services (NECS), R/o – Dawrpui, Dist. - Aizawl, State - Mizoram 2. Shri M. Chakhu, Chairman, Pakho Builders, R/o – Upper Khatla, Dist. - Aizawl, State - Mizoram Page No.# 2/8 3. The State of Mizoram, Through Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Department of Social Welfare and Tribal Affairs, Government of Mizoram, Dist. – Aizawl, State – Mizoram. 4. The Director, Department of Social Welfare and Tribal Affairs, Government of Mizoram, Dist. – Aizawl, State – Mizoram. … RESPONDENTS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Advocates for the appellants: Mr. Taher Ahmed Choudhury, Adv. Advocates for the respondents: Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, Adv., for R2 Mr. Lalfakawma, Adv., for R1 Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Mr. Taher Ahmed Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Page No.# 3/8 [2.] This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1809 (CPC) read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the same Code and also with Section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 against the impugned Order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) – I, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 171 of 2023. By the impugned Order, the learned Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellants on the ground that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. [3.] The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court while rejecting the plaint for want of disclosure of cause of action, failed to take into consideration other relevant aspects, such as knowledge of the respondent No. 1 about the construction work being carried out by the appellants, the respondent No. 1 enjoying the benefit of the work executed by the appellants etc. Referring to Clause No. 2 of the Power of Attorney entered between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 on 12.01.2021, the learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 2 was duly authorized to do all other necessary acts and things in regard to the construction work on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and the same was accepted to be binding upon the respondent No. 1 with full force or effect. Such being the position, the plaint submitted by the appellants could not have been rejected by the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel thus submits that under the facts and circumstances the impugned Order should be set aside and the matter be remanded back for consideration by the learned Trial Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities: 1. Mita India Private Limited Vs. Mahendra Jain, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 163; Page No.# 4/8 2. M/S Dilawari Exporters Vs. M/S Alitalia Cargo & Ors., 2010 5 SCC 754; and 3. Liverpool and London S.P. & I Asson Vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr., 2004 9 SCC 512. [4.] Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, submits that Clause – 2 of the Power of Attorney executed between the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 does not authorize the respondent No. 2 to sub- contract the work to the appellants. The respondent No. 1, in fact upon coming to learn about the action of the respondent No. 2 immediately instructed the respondent No. 2 to stop the execution of the work by the appellants. He submits that the pleaded case by the appellants in their suit also goes to show that the appellants have indeed accepted the fact that respondent No. 1 asked the work to be stopped upon finding out that it was being executed by the appellants. The respondent No. 1 is not a signatory to the agreement of the Power of Attorney executed between the parties concerned and therefore, there is no question of seeking a decree against the respondent No. 1 for payment of the principle balance of amount along with the interest as claimed by the appellants in their plaint. The learned counsel in support of his submission has drawn attention of the Court to the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1, more particularly, Paragraph No. 8, 10, 11, 12 & 13 amongst others. The learned counsel also submits that he would rely upon the case of Mita India Private Limited (supra) which was already been cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. [5.] Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, also submits that the essential ingredient to give a valid rectification for acts done by one Page No.# 5/8 person on behalf of another is knowledge of the fact that the work is being done which otherwise is absent in the present case. In this connection, the learned counsel refers to Section 196 and 198 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The learned counsel also refers to Section 238 of the same act to contend that misrepresentation made, or frauds committed, by agents acting in the course of their business for their principals, have the same effect on agreements made by such agents as if such misrepresentations or frauds had been made or committed by the principals but misrepresentations made, or frauds committed, by agents, in matters which do not fall within their authority, do not affect their principals. In the present case also the respondent No. 2 acted without any authority given by the respondent No. 1 and therefore, respondent No. 1 cannot be liable for payment of any amount to the appellants. [6.] The learned counsel finally submits that rejection of the plaint on the ground of absence of cause of action does not bar the appellants from filing a fresh suit subject to there being a cause of action. He thus submits that there cannot be a legitimate grievance against the impugned Order and the appeal being without merit should be dismissed. [7.] Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that she supports the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and by referring to the impugned Order itself, she submits that the learned Trial Court has also taken note of the Apex Court decision in the case of Mita India Private Limited (supra), where it was observed that though General Power of Attorney holder cannot delegate his powers to another person but the same can be delegated when there is specific clause permitting sub-delegation. Referring to Clause – 2 of the Power of Attorney dated 12.01.2021, he submits that the Page No.# 6/8 executant (respondent No.1) has given wide power and authorization to the attorney holder to do all other necessary acts and things in regard to the work in question on his behalf and which would be binding upon the respondent No. 1. She, further, submits that the respondent No. 1 was also aware of the fact that the appellants were undertaking the construction work as he had occasionally visited the construction site. Therefore, it cannot be said that the work executed by the appellants is unauthorized, in view of the enabling provision which can be read in Clause – 2 of the Power of Attorney dated 12.01.2021. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Order should be interfered with by this Court. [8.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. From the above projection, the issue to be decided is as to whether the learned Trial Court is justified in rejecting the plaint on account of its finding that the plaint did not disclose the cause of action. [9.] There are several reasons given under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint and in the instant case, the plaint appears to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC. The appellants have contemplated that there is clear authorization for doing all necessary acts in regard to the work in question and such acts done would be on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and would be binding upon him. In this connection, Clause – 2 of the Power of Attorney dated 12.01.2021 has been referred to. A perusal of the impugned Order does not disclose that this aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration before or while passing the impugned Order. [10.] Another bone of contention, which appears to be attracted is with regard Page No.# 7/8 to the knowledge of the respondent No. 1 about the appellants undertaking the work in view of their agreement or Power of Attorney arrived between the appellants and the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, in the written objection filed has also stated that the respondent No. 1 had visited the construction site on many occasions and therefore, he was aware about the appellants undertaking the construction. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 has denied of having authorized the defendant No. 2 to delegate the authority of undertaking the construction work further to the appellants. The respondent No. 1 has also denied about his knowledge of the bills raised by the appellants to the respondent No. 2. Such being the controversy raised by the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that it was essentially necessary on the part of the learned Trial Court to examine the respective claim of the parties before coming to its conclusion about the lack of cause of action against the respondents. [11.] The learned counsels for the rival parties have referred to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, more particularly, Sections 196 and 198 amongst others, wherein, the determination of acts done without authority and the fact thereof has been provided and in which, the important ingredient would be knowledge of the acts being done. Further, Section 237 of the same Act provides, acts done by the agent without authority or incurred obligations to third party on behalf of the principal would bind the principal of such acts or obligations in the event, the principal by his words or conduct has induced such third persons to believe that such acts and obligations were within the scope of the agent’s authority. Therefore, a determination in this regard in the considered view of this court would be necessary before taking a decision to reject the plaint in the manner it was done. Page No.# 8/8 [12.] Under the circumstance, this Court of the view that the matter should be revisited by the learned Trial Court by affording due opportunity to all the parties concerned as observed hereinabove. Accordingly, the matter stands remanded back to the learned Trial Court, i.e., the Civil Judge Senior Division – I, Aizawl. The impugned Order is hereby set aside and parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 14th November, 2025, whereafter, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. [13.] With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Registry to send back the TCR immediately. JUDGE Comparing Assistant