Anthony Chorei and 2 Others vs D Jack

2026:MNHC:189
REPORTABLE
Suppl.-1 Item Nos. 1-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL

CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 41 of 2026

1. Mr. Anthony Chorei aged about 44 years S/o Late D. Chorei,
resident of Ward No. III , Tamenglong District Headquarter,
P.O. & P.S. Tamenglong, Tamenglong District, Manipur PIN
795141.
2. Shri Huthumang Kamei, aged about 60 years, S/o Late
IV
Chaliuak Kamei resident of Ward No. , Medical Colony,
P.O. & P.S. Tamenglong District Headquarter, Tamenglong
District, Manipur - 795141.
3. Mr. Jikthanlung Kamei aged about 40 years, S/o Huthumang
Kamei resident of Ward No. IV , Medical Colony, Tamenglong
District Headquarter, P.O. & P.S. Tamenglong, Manipur -
795141.
…Petitioners
- Versus -
Mr. D. Jack aged about 32 years S/o Late D. Chorei resident
of Ward No. III , Tamenglong District Headquarter, P.O. &
P.S. Tamenglong, Tamenglong District, Manipur PIN
795141.
…Respondent
With
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

1. Mr. Anthony Chorei aged about 44 years S/o Late D. Chorei,
resident of Ward No. III , Tamenglong District Headquarter,
P.O. & P.S. Tamenglong, Tamenglong District, Manipur PIN
795141.
2. Shri Huthumang Kamei, aged about 60 years, S/o Late
Chaliuak Kamei resident of Ward No. IV , Medical Colony,
P.O. & P.S. Tamenglong District Headquarter, Tamenglong
District, Manipur - 795141.
3. Mr. Jikthanlung Kamei aged about 40 years, S/o Huthumang
Kamei resident of Ward No. IV , Medical Colony, Tamenglong
District Headquarter, P.O. & P.S. Tamenglong, Manipur -
795141.
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 1 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
…Applicants
- Versus -
Mr. D. Jack aged about 32 years S/o Late D. Chorei resident
III
of Ward No. , Tamenglong District Headquarter, P.O. &
P.S. Tamenglong, Tamenglong District, Manipur PIN
795141.
…Respondent

B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

For the revision petitioners : Mr. Th. Ibohal, Sr. Advocate,
instructed by Ms. B. Karishma
Sharma, Advocate
Date of order : 27-08-2026

ORDER
(ORAL)
[1] Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Ms. B.
Karishma Sharma, counsel on record for revision petitioners is before this
Court. To be noted, captioned civil revision petition and caption
miscellaneous case thereat are in admission Board.
[2] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this
order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short
Full Form/Expansion
Form/other short
references
1. CPC The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (Act V of 1908)
2. trial court The Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Tamenglong at
Lamphelpat, Imphal
3. first appellate court The Court of District Judge,
Tamenglong, Manipur
4. suit property Plot of land admeasuring 60 x 70
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 2 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short
Full Form/Expansion
Form/other short
references
feet situate at Ward No. IV ,
Tamenglong HQs, Tamenglong
District, Manipur
5. CRP Civil Revision Petition
6. MC Miscellaneous case
7. said suit Original Suit No. 3 of 2022 on the
file of Trial Court
8. limitation act The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of
1963)
9. impugned order 09-07-2026 order made by first
appellate court in Misc. Civil
Appeal Case No. 3 of 2025
(allowing the appeal)
[3] Factual matrix in a nutshell i.e., short facts shorn of elaboration
and details not imperative for appreciating instant order are that one, Mr. D.
Chorei died on 18-12-1991 leaving behind legal heirs and to be noted, as
amongst his legal heirs first revision petitioner, Mr. Anthony Chorei is elder
brother of sole respondent, Mr. D. Jack; that the sole respondent in
captioned CRP filed a civil suit i.e., said suit inter alia arraying his elder
st nd
brother, Anthony Chorei as 1 defendant and the other legal heirs as 2 and
rd
3 defendants; that the suit was filed with prayers for declaration of title qua
suit property, quashing and setting aside of mutation order dated 09-07-
2015 made by jurisdictional revenue authority qua suit property besides
prayers for quashing and setting aside agreement/s for sale/sale deed,
perpetual injunction and other ancillary orders; that, the said suit was
instituted in the trial court on 18-06-2022; that the defendants filed written
statement dated 16-12-2022 and completed pleadings; that on completion
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 3 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
of pleadings, trial court framed four issues on 06-03-2024 and one of the
four issues is whether the said suit is barred by law of limitation; that post
framing of issues, defendants took out Judl. Misc. Case No. 13 of 2024 inter
alia under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of plaint primarily
on the sole ground that the said suit is barred by limitation as it is a
declaratory suit and it has been filed beyond three years from the date on
which right to sue first accrued; that to put it differently, said suit is not in
conformity with Article 58 of Part III of First Division (suits) of the Schedule
to Limitation Act; that prior to filing of said suit, plaintiff in the trial court (sole
respondent in captioned CRP) approached this Court by way of a writ
petition being WP(C) No. 697 of 2018, inter alia assailing 09-07-2015
mutation order qua suit property made by jurisdictional revenue authority;
that this writ petition, after resorting to mediation, came to be disposed of by
this Court in and vide an order dated 19-03-2020; that, to be noted, in
mediation, sole respondent went before the mediation centre for sittings but
the revision petitioners did not turn up and that is the reason why mediation
did not get kick started and became a non-starter; that post disposal of writ
petition by this Court on 19-03-2020 said suit was instituted by lone
respondent in captioned CRP on 18-06-2022 in trial court; that in such
circumstances, rejection of plaint application being Judl. Misc. Case No. 13
of 2024 was taken out by the defendants (post completion of pleadings and
framing of issues about which there is allusion in earlier part of this factual
matrix) and the trial court after full contest, in and vide order dated 21-08-
2024 allowed the rejection of plaint application and rejected the plaint qua
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 4 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
said suit; Assailing this rejection of plaint order of the trial court dated 21-08-
2024, plaintiff carried the matter in appeal to first appellate court, vide Misc.
Civil Appeal Case No. 3 of 2025 and the first appellate court in and vide
order dated 09-07-2026, after full contest, allowed the appeal, set aside the
order of trial court and directed the trial court to continue with the trial of said
suit, inter-alia making it clear that issue of limitation in said suit is a mixed
question of fact and law and directing trial court to decide the issue of
limitation according to law {To be noted, limitation is one of the four issues
framed by trial court as alluded to in earlier part of this factual matrix}; that
assailing the impugned order, captioned CRP has been presented in this
Court on 14-08-2026; that defects were rectified on 24-08-2026 and
captioned CRP along with captioned MC thereat is on Board before this
Court today.
[4] Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Senior Advocate, notwithstanding myriad
grounds in the memorandum of grounds of civil revision petition (CRP),
predicated his campaign against the impugned order on two main points and
they are as follows:
i) the trial court has not drawn up a decree and therefore, an
appeal under Section 96 to the first appellate court is
impermissible; and
ii) ii) the question of limitation is a serious question and the
same has to be decided by this Court.
[5] This Court perused the case file and carefully considered the
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 5 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
submissions of learned senior counsel.
[6] This Court now proceeds to consider the afore-referred two points
one after the other and set out its discussion and dispositive reasoning on
the points.
[7] As regards first point, the impugned order very clearly mentions
that decree has not been drawn up. Nonetheless, the appeal being Misc.
Civil Appeal Case No. 3 of 2025 has been presented under Section 96 read
with Section 151 of CPC. On a demurer, if it cannot be a regular first appeal
under Section 96 of CPC, the first appellate court is not denuded of its
powers to test the rejection of plaint order dated 21-08-2024 made by the
trial court. This means that at the highest, first point means that it is a case
of quoting wrong provision of law. Law is well settled that quoting wrong
provision of law, will not prove for fatal and it will not denude a Court of its
powers if the powers are otherwise traceable to any other provision of law.
In this view of the matter, the first point urged does not find favour with this
Court.
[8] As regards the second point i.e., that limitation is a very important
point, there can be no two opinions about the same. The limitation act vide
Section 3 makes it clear that bar of limitation will result in dismissal of a suit,
even if it has not been set up as a defence by the defendant. Be that as it
may, as regards limitation, the sanctus principle is remedy is barred but right
is not extinguished. In this view of the matter, limitation should certainly be
examined. In the case at hand, what is of relevance is, as already alluded to
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 6 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
supra , pleadings were completed and the trial court has framed as many as
four issues and the four issues framed by the trial court are as follows :—
‘1) Whether the Schedule Suit Land described in the Plaint and the
Schedule Land-B described in the written statement are one and
the same land or not?
2) Whether there was a family settlement of the properties left by D.
Chorei and if so, whether the Plaintiff received the Suit Land as
his shared property in the said settlement or not?
3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?’
A careful perusal of the aforesaid four issues makes it clear that
issue No. 3 is whether the suit is barred by limitation? The impugned order
makes it clear that the trial court will now decide the question of limitation in
accordance with law. The reason i.e., dispositive reasoning given by the first
appellate court in the impugned order is that limitation is a mixed question
of law and fact. It is also been made clear that plaintiff (sole respondent in
captioned CRP) may be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation
Act as the plaintiff filed WP(C) No. 697 of 2018 in this Court, in 2018 itself,
even if 09-07-2015 mutation order of jurisdictional revenue authority is taken
as reckoning date. The writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court
(after resorting to mediation) only on 19-03-2020. The suit was presented in
trial court on 18-06-2022. Therefore, whether the plaintiff would be entitled
to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is clearly a mixed question of
fact and law as rightly observed by the first appellate court. The first
appellate court has not returned a verdict on whether the plaintiff is entitled
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 7 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It has been made clear that
the same shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law. This
Court is of the considered view that the question as to whether mutation
order (09.07.2015) is reckoning date is also a mixed question of fact of law
as it is a case of computing claims between siblings for father’s property and
a mutation order does not confer title.
[9] There is another way of looking at the captioned matter. Captioned
matter is an exception to the age-old adage ‘blood is thicker than water’ . The
reason is siblings are adversaries qua immovable property of father i.e., suit
property. In such cases, though the suit is one for declaration of title and for
quashing the orders more particularly the order (mutation order) dated 09-
07-2015 made by the jurisdictional revenue authority, can be construed as
a partition suit though partition is not the prayer. In partition suits as much
as there are no plaintiffs and no defendants there is no limitation but this
Court expresses no view or opinion on the same as it is for the trial court to
go into all these accepts while examining the question of limitation, more
particularly, the question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit
of exclusion of time vide Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
[10] This Court carefully perused the order of the first appellate court.
The first appellate court has made it clear (as part of the dispositive
reasoning) that the trial court has allowed the rejection of the plaint
application primarily on the basis of pleadings contained in paragraph No.
14 of the plaint which reads as follows:—
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 8 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
‘14. That the cause of action arises when the Defendant No. 1
fraudulently, by misrepresentation and suppressing material
facts and documents obtained mutation order dated 09.07.2015
in his name pertaining to the suit land. The cause of action
further arose when the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur vide its
judgment and order dated 19.03.2020 passed in W.P (C) 697 of
2018 directed the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 to appear before
the Member Secretary, Manipur State Legal Services Authority.
The cause of action further arose on 30.03.2022 when the
Additional Member Secretary, Manipur State Legal Services
Authority intimated the Assistant Registrar - I, High Court of
Manipur, Mantripukhri, Imphal, Manipur about the unsuccessful
of mediation., The cause of action is still continuing within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The suit is within the
period of limitation.’
A careful perusal of the aforesaid pleadings makes it clear that the
plaintiff has pleaded that the cause of action is constituted not merely by the
09-07-2015 mutation order made by the jurisdictional revenue authority but
the plaintiff has also specifically referred to order dated 19-03-2020 made
by this Court in WP(C) No. 697 of 2018. Therefore, the plaint has to be read
as a whole to test a rejection of plaint application. The test for a rejection of
plaint application is well settled. It is uncontroverted averments in the plaint
without adding or subtracting and without looking into any extraneous
materials sole exception being admitted documents. Therefore, even if
paragraph No. 14 and the plaint as a whole are looked into, this Court is of
the considered view that limitation is not a case for rejection of plaint but
examination by trial court as a mixed question of law and facts. One of the
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 9 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
reasons in this regard is the classical distinction between sub-clause (d) and
other sub-clauses of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. Unlike clause (a) of Order
VII Rule 11, which deals with non-disclosure of a cause of action and sub
clauses (b) and (c) merely say sub clause (d) which deals with suit appearing
to be barred by any law makes it clear that the suit should appear to be
barred by any law from ‘the statement in the plaint’ . This means that the
classical difference between sub-clauses (a) to (c) on side and sub clause
(d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is that while it need not be evident from
a statement in the plaint, as regards clause (d) alone it has been made clear
that the bar should appear from the statement in the plaint. This Court is of
the considered view that paragraph No. 14 of the plaint on which the trial
court has predicated its verdict pertaining to the rejection of plaint on a plaint
when read without adding or subtracting is not a case of being barred by
limitation vide Article 58 of Part III of First Division (suits) of Schedule to the
Limitation Act. The reason is, paragraph No. 14 refers to the time spent by
the plaintiff i.e., the sole respondent in this Court vide WP(C) No. 697 of
2018 where the plaintiff had challenged the mutation order made by the
jurisdictional revenue authority being a mutation order dated 09-07-2015.
[11] In the light of the narration, discussion and dispositive reasoning
thus far, this Court has no hesitation in writing that it comes to the conclusion
that captioned CRP does not pass muster in the admission Board. However,
before writing the operative portion of instant order, though obvious, for the
sake of specificity, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that the
trial court shall now test all the issues more particularly, issue No. 3 which
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 10 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026

2026:MNHC:189
reads ‘whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?’ on its own merits and
in accordance with law untrammeled either by the order of the first appellate
court (impugned order) or by instant order made by this Court. In this regard,
it is made clear that all questions are left open for all the litigants to be raised
when issue No. 3 is tested by the Trial Court.
[12] Ergo , the sequitur is, captioned CRP fails to pass muster in the
admission Board and the same is dismissed. Consequently, captioned MC
thereat also perishes with captioned CRP and the same is also dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR

Victoria/Indrajeet

Digitally signed by
LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJEET SINGH
Date: 2026.08.31
11:08:52 +05'30'
LAIRENMAYU
M INDRAJEET
SINGH
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 41 of 2026 & Page 11 of 11
MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 66 of 2026