Th Lungpuijai vs Lambidin and 3 others
- Court
- Manipur High Court
2026:MNHC:190
Reportable
Sl. No.14 & 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2025
[Ref.: 1. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2024
2. Judl. Misc. Case No. 264 of 2022
3. Original Suit No. 18 of 2022]
Th. Lungpuijai, aged about 66 years, S/o Late Th. Ngamjinlung, a
resident of Ngarian Village P.O., P.S. & District-Bishnupur, Manipur.
…. Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Lambidin, aged about 71 years, S/O (L) Kaningthui of Chaiba
Village, P.O. & P.S-Bishnupur, District – Churachandpur, Manipur.
2. Ibohal Chothe, aged about 67 years, S/O (L) Thambaljao Chothe of
Chothe village, P.O., P.S. & District– Bishnupur, Manipur.
3. Maipak Chothe, aged about 77 years, S/O (L) Linhoi Chothe of
Chothe Village, P.O., P.S. & District -Bishnupur, Manipur.
4. Executive Officer, Bishnupur, Municipal Council District – Bishnupur,
Manipur.
.... Respondents
with
MC[CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227)] No. 41 of 2025
[Ref. : C.R.P. (C.R.P. under Art. 227) No. 30 of 2025]
Th. Lungpuijai, aged about 66 years, S/o Late Th. Ngamjinlung, a
resident of Ngarian Village P.O., P.S. & District-Bishnupur, Manipur.
…. Applicant/Petitioner
Page 1 of 10
2026:MNHC:190
- Versus -
1. Lambidin, aged about 71 years, S/o late Kaningthui of Chaiba
Village, P.O. & P.S-Bishnupur, District – Churachandpur, Manipur.
2. Ibohal Chothe, aged about 67 years, S/O (L) Thambaljao Chothe of
Chothe Village, P.O., P.S. & District - Bishnupur, Manipur.
3. Maipak Chote, aged about 77 years, S/O (L) Village, Linthoi Chothe
of Chothe Village, P.O., P.S & District - Bishnupur, Manipur.
4. Executive Officer, Bishnupur, Municipal Council, Bishnupur District,
Manipur.
.... Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
For revision petitioner Ms. Anandita, Advocate along with Ms.
Pushpatolly M, Advocate.
For respondents Mr. Mayonkui Ngalung, Advocate along
with Mr. Decembering, Advocate.
Date of Judgment & Order 27.08.2026
JUDGEMENT & ORDER
(Oral)
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this
order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short
Form/other short
references
Full Form/Expansion
1. CRP Civil Revision Petition
2 said Trial court Court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Bishnupur, Manipur
Page 2 of 10
2026:MNHC:190
3. said suit Original suit No.18 of 2022 on
the file of Trial court.
4. said injunction application Judl. Misc. Case No. 264 of 2022
in said suit on the file of said trial
court.
5. Judl. M.C. Judicial Miscellaneous Case
6. said first appellate court Court of District Judge,
Bishnupur
7. D1 first defendant (similar
abbreviation/s are used for other
defendants also with a numeric
change alone i.e.,
‘second defendant’ is referred to
as ‘D2’,
‘third defendant’ is referred to as
‘D3’ so on and so forth)
8. R1 First respondent (similar
abbreviation/s are used for other
respondents also with a numeric
change alone.
9. CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
10 MC Miscellaneous Case
[2] In the hearing today, Ms. Anandita, learned counsel on record
for lone revision petitioner (along with co-counsel, Ms. Pushpatolly M) and Mr.
Mayonkui Ngalung, learned counsel on record for R1 to R3 (along with Mr.
Decembering, learned counsel) are before this Court (physical).
[3] To be noted, as regards R4, this Court is informed that R4 has
been duly served but R4 has neither chosen to enter appearance through
counsel nor come before this Court. In this regard, it is also to be noted that
pursuant to proceedings made by this Court in earlier listings, more
Page 3 of 10
2026:MNHC:190
particularly the proceedings made in the listing on 20.03.2026, R4 as in the
cause title is duly shown in the cause list today also, R4 is not before this Court
either in the physical Court or on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform. Be
that as it may, until today, R4 has not chosen to enter appearance through
any counsel. Therefore, R4 is set ex-parte.
[4] This Court heard learned counsel on both sides after taking up
the main CRP with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.
[5] Factual matrix in a nutshell i.e., short facts shorn of elaboration
and details which are not imperative for appreciating instant order are that,
lone revision petitioner in captioned CRP is the lone plaintiff in said suit in said
Trial court; that R1 to R4 are D1 to D4 respectively in said suit in said Trial
court; that for the sake of convenience and clarity, in the instant order, ‘lone
revision petitioner’ will also be referred to as ‘plaintiff’ wherever necessary and
same is the case with R1 to R4 (D1 to D4 in the said suit in said trial court);
that plaintiff presented a plaint dated 24.08.2022 in said trial court with a
prayer that a stream which is running near the agricultural lands of the plaintiff
and other members of an association(‘said association’ for the sake of
convenience) which goes by the name ‘ Khalok Loukon Lourup’ (with about 30
members) is natural act of a natural flow and injunction qua construction/work
obstructing/diverting the same; that, to be noted ‘the stream is running from
western (mountain side) to eastern side in a straight line’ is plaintiff’s pleading
in said suit in said Trial court and this stream shall be referred to as ‘said
Page 4 of 10
2026:MNHC:190
stream’ in instant order for the sake of convenience and clarity; that the plaint
prayer for declaration that natural flow of said stream is a natural act and
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing the work of
digging the earth or doing other work should be injuncted have been made;
that it is to be noted that the burden of the song qua pleadings in the plaint is
that the work that is being done by the defendants is affecting the natural flow
of said stream and this in turn is affecting the irrigation of agricultural lands of
plaintiff and other members of said association; that the said trial Court on
24.08.2022, granted an ex-parte order of status quo in an injunction
application being Judl. Misc. Case No.264 of 2022 taken out by the plaintiff
along with the suit; that post service of suit summons/notice in injunction
application, defendants entered appearance, contested the injunction
application and the trial court by an order dated 12.02.2024 vacated the status
quo order dated 24.08.2022; that the aggrieved plaintiff carried the matter to
said first appellate court by way of Misc. Civil appeal No.1 of 2024 being Misc.
Civil appeal No.1 of 2024 under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC; that in this Misc.
Civil appeal No.1 of 2024, the first appellate court initially granted an interim
order dated 11.03.2024 and thereafter after full contest, dismissed the appeal
confirming the 12.02.2024 order of the trial court; that aggrieved plaintiff has
carried the matter to this Court vide captioned CRP which has been filed in
this Court on 02.06.2025 along with MC(CRP(CRP Art.227) No.41 of 2025;
that interim order in captioned MC was granted by Hon’ble predecessor Chief
Page 5 of 10
2026:MNHC:190
Justice on 04.06.2025, the same has been extended from time to time and it
is continuing to operate now; that the respondents have filed an affidavit-in-
opposition dated 12.11.2025 (filed on 13.11.2025 but erroneously in CRP) in
captioned MC; that under such circumstances, captioned main MC was heard
out.
[6] Before proceedings further, this Court deems it appropriate to
record that from the District & Sessions Court website, it comes to light that
pleadings are complete in said suit in said trial court and it was kept for issue
hearing on 15.04.2024 but thereafter, it has been repeatedly adjourned sine-
die apparently owing to 04.06.2025 interim order of this Court. In this regard,
it is to be noted that the prayer in captioned MC reads as follows:
‘(i) Pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the
respondents, their agents, servants, privies or anyone acting on
their behalf from entering the suit land and from disturbing or
obstructing the natural flow of the stream situated adjacent to
the suit land, pending the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition;
(ii) Stay all further proceedings in Original Suit No. 18 of 2022
pending in the Court of the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Bishnupur, during the pendency of the present Civil Revision
Petition before this Hon’ble Court; and
(iii) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice.’
[7] Suffice to write that though pleadings are complete and said suit
is in issue hearing stage, trial has come to a grinding halt, it is also to be noted
that Hon’ble predecessor Bench vide 04.06.2025 has granted status quo order
Page 6 of 10
2026:MNHC:190
but apparently owing to the prayer in the captioned MC, the suit has come to
a grinding halt.
[8] Reverting to the captioned CRP at hand, it turns on a very short
point as it is clear that there is no disputation or contestation about existence
of said stream, there is also no disputation about the existence of agricultural
land of plaintiff as well as defendants and there is also no disputation about
some form of construction put up by the defendants qua said stream at least
on 05.08.2022 and 16.08.2022. The contestation is, while the plaintiff
contends that the work/construction qua said stream put up by the defendants
on 05.08.2022 and 16.08.2022 divert the flow of the said stream to their
agricultural land depriving the plaintiff and other members of said association
of irrigation to their agricultural lands, the defendants contend that the work
done/construction put up qua said stream on 05.08.2022 and 16.08.2022 were
not acts of encroachment for diversion but only acts of protecting measures
undertaken in good faith to restore said stream to its original course.
[9] As regards the order of said trial court dated 12.02.2024, the ex-
parte interim order of status quo granted on 24.08.2022 has been vacated
solely on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any documents in
support of construction work of defendants. This is evident from dispositive
reasoning of the order of said trial court dated 12.02.2024 which reads as
follows:
Page 7 of 10
2026:MNHC:190
‘Further, the plaintiff has not produced any documents in
support of its pleadings to support its case except for
signatures of members of Khalok Loukon Lourup and
photographs of work of defendants which is subject to strict
proof at the time of trial.’
Thereafter, the first appellate court which originally granted
interim order (on 11.03.2024) has subsequently opined that the original ex-
parte status quo order is vague, it is not clear as to whether it pertains to
digging of land or diversion of water works and therefore the said trial court
was correct in making the (vacating) order dated 12.02.2024.
[10] As regards the construction put up by the defendants, the most
relevant portion in the afore-referred affidavit-in-opposition reads as follows:
‘The obstructions raised by the respondents on 05.08.2022
and 16.08.2022 were not acts of encroachment or diversion,
but rather protective measures undertaken in good faith to
restore the stream to its original course and prevent further
destruction of agricultural land.’
[11] In the light of narration thus far, this Court finds that existence of
stream, existence of agricultural lands of both plaintiff as well as members of
said association and defendants and irrigation of agricultural lands from said
stream are not in dispute and further even the construction is not in dispute
and only contestation is, while plaintiff contends that the construction is for
diverting the flow of said stream to agricultural lands of defendants, the
defendants are contending that construction is to restore the said stream to its
original course and prevent further destruction of agricultural land. In this view
Page 8 of 10
2026:MNHC:190
of the matter, coupled with the fact that the status quo order has been
operating from 24.08.2022 to 12.02.2024 and subsequently interim order of
first appellate court was operating from 11.03.2024 to 17.04.2025 followed by
interim order of this Court from 04.06.2025 (operating until today), this Court
is of the considered view that the status quo order should continue to operate
and said trial court should now expedite trial and conclude said suit.
[12] As regards said trial court expediting trial of said suit, it will be
subject to other official business of said trial court and this observation is made
only because said suit has now come to a grinding halt from 14.07.2024 and
it has been repeatedly adjourned sine die owing to the language in which
prayer in captioned MC is couched about which there is allusion elsewhere
supra in this order.
[13] Ergo, the sequitur is:
(a) impugned order of first appellant court being order dated
17.04.2025 in Misc. Civil appeal No.1 of 2024 is set aside;
(b) as the impugned order of the first appellate court confirms the
order of trial court dated 12.02.2024, the order of said trial court
dated 12.02.2024 made in Judl. Misc. Case No.264 of 2022 in
Original Suit i.e., O.S. No.18 of 2022 is also dislodged/set aside;
(c) axiomatically, the order of status quo granted by said trial
court in Judl. Misc. Case No.264 of 2022 in Original suit No.18
Page 9 of 10
2026:MNHC:190
of 2022 on 24.08.2022 is restored and the same will continue to
operate till disposal of main suit i.e., said suit and said trial court
shall expedite the said suit, frame issues, conclude the trial and
return a verdict as expeditiously as the official business of said
Trial court would permit;
[14] Captioned CRP is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid
directions/observations. Consequently captioned MC thereat is disposed of as
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom/Bipin
FR/NFR
P.S. I : Upload forthwith.
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court website inter-
alia as the same is QR coded.
Digitally signed by
JOHN TELEN KOM
Date: 2026.08.31
12:33:02 +05'30'
JOHN
TELEN KOM
Page 10 of 10