RAUNAK AGENCY Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel assisted by. Ms. D. Lalrinchhani appearing for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THIS is an application under Order XLVII, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for review of the judgment and decree dated 2.08.2012 passed by this Court in RFA No. 31 of 2012 thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court at the motion stage without issuing notice to the respondents.

(3.) THE learned trial Court, by judgment and order/decree dated 7.6.2012, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 468/ - lakhs alongwith interest @9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the suit till realization. According to the plaintiff, there was an agreement on 16.09.2008 between him and the Government of Mizoram thereby appointing him as the sole selling agent of Online Lotteries. But during pendency of the contract, the Government sought to abruptly remodel the contractual structure to the detriment of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the plaintiff claimed compensation @Rs. 2.5 lakhs per day, of course, without making statement as to material fact as to how such an exorbitant amount of compensation could be claimed. The State/defendant contested the suit tooth and nail including on the question of maintainability. But the learned trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 7.06.2012 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Mizoram preferred an appeal before this Court pointing apparent legalities discernible from the judgment itself. True, the said judgment and decree may not be supported by cogent materials on record yet this Court at the stage of admission of the appeal allowed the same setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanding the case for retrial. According to the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the respondents herein, the learned trial Court has already started retrying the case on the basis of the earlier order passed by this Court on 2.08.2012. Challenging the said judgment and decree/order dated 2.08.2012 passed by this Court, the plaintiff as petitioner, has preferred this Review Petition alleging that the said judgment of this Court is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of record inasmuch as the Code of Civil Procedure has not vested any jurisdiction on the First Appellate Court to allow any appeal without issuing notice to the respondent of the appeal. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought my attention to the provision of Rule 11 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said provision is quoted below : -