SMT. LAISHRAM NINGOL SUJITA DEVI vs LAISHRAM MODHU @ MODHUCHANDRA SINGH REPRESNTED BY HIS LR AND 6 ORS.

Digitally signed
by
LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJEET
SINGH
Date:
2026.05.27
19:06:22 +05'30'
LAIRENM
AYUM
INDRAJE
ET SINGH
ca
REPORTABLE
Sl. Nos. 1-4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 42 of 2017
1. Smt. Laishram Ningol Sujita Devi, aged about 58 years,
D/o (Late) L. Nimai Singh of Sagolband Moirang Leirak,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur (W/o Ksh. Dhirendra Singh of Chingamakha
Oinam Leirak, Opp. Manipur College, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur).
2. Laishram Saratchandra @ Sana, aged about 52 years,
S/o (Late) L. Nimai Singh of Keishamthong Maning
Longjam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
……Petitioner s
Vs.
1. Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandra Singh, aged about 56
years, S/o (Late) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of
Second floor of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur (now deceased represented by his legal heirs).
(i) Smt. Laishram (O) Kamala Devi, aged about 61
years, W/o (Late) Laishram Modhu @
Modhuchandra Singh now residing at ‘JMJ’
Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal,
P.S. City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(ii) Laishram (N) Longjam (O) Kavita Devi, aged
about 39 years, W/o L. Ibotombi Singh, a resident
of Singjamei Mayengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iii) Laishram Mickey, aged about 35 years, S/o (Late)
Laishram Modhu @ Modhucahndra Singh, a
resident of ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar,
Page 1 of 25

P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
(iv) Laishram Karisma Devi, aged about 29 years, S/o
(Late) Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandra Singh
now residing at ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
2. Laishram Micky, aged about 29 years, S/o (Late)
Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandrra Singh, a resident of
Second Floor of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
3. Laishram Jugol Singh, aged about 20 years, S/o (Late)
Bikramcha Singh, now residing at Second Floor of the
‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Respondents
4. Laishram Ibechaobi Devi, aged about 82 years, W/o (L)
Laishram Nimai Singh, residing at Second Floor of the
‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal P.S.
City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Laishram (N) R.K. (O) Chandrasakhi Devi, aged about
63 years, D/o (L) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of
Keishamthong Top Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur(now deceased represented by her
legal heirs).
(i) Smt. Sagolshem (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol) Sunita
Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o Sagolshem
Ibohanbi Singh, resident of Keishamthong
Moirang Ningthou Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
(ii) Smt. Nongmeikapam (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol)
Rajlakshmi Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o
Nongmeikapam Budhichandra Singh, resident of
Keishamthong Moirang Ningthou Leirak, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
Page 2 of 25

(iii) Smt. Okram (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol) Tamphasana
Devi, aged about 40 years, W/o Okram Ratnesh
Singh, resident of Kwakeithel Moirang Purel, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iv) Shri Rajkumar Indubhushan Singh, aged about 38
years, S/o Late Laishram (N) R.K. (O)
Chandrasakhi Devi, resident of Keishamthong Top
Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
6. Laishram (N) Jandhabi Devi, aged about 60 years, D/o
(Late) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of Second Floor
of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
7. Laishram (N) Binashakhi Devi, aged about 58 years, D/o
(L) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of Sagolband Bijoy
Govinda, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
… Proforma Responden ts
With
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 39 of 2017
1. Smt. Laishram Ningol Sujita Devi, aged about 58 years,
D/o (Late) L. Nimai Singh of Sagolband Moirang Leirak,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur (W/o Ksh. Dhirendra Singh of Chingamakha
Oinam Leirak, Opp. Manipur College, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur).
2. Laishram Saratchandra @ Sana, aged about 52 years,
S/o (Late) L. Nimai Singh of Keishamthong Maning
Longjam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
……Petitioners
Vs.
1. Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandra Singh, aged about 56
years, S/o (Late) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of
Second floor of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Page 3 of 25

Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur (now deceased represented by his legal heirs).
(i) Smt. Laishram (O) Kamala Devi, aged about 61
years, W/o (Late) Laishram Modhu @
Modhuchandra Singh now residing at ‘JMJ’
Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal,
P.S. City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(ii) Laishram (N) Longjam (O) Kavita Devi, aged
about 39 years, W/o L. Ibotombi Singh, a resident
of Singjamei Mayengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iii) Laishram Mickey, aged about 35 years, S/o (Late)
Laishram Modhu @ Modhucahndra Singh, a
resident of ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
(iv) Laishram Karisma Devi, aged about 29 years, S/o
(Late) Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandra Singh
now residing at ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
2. Laishram Micky, aged about 29 years, S/o (Late)
Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandrra Singh, a resident of
Second Floor of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
3. Laishram Jugol Singh, aged about 20 years, S/o (Late)
Bikramcha Singh, now residing at Second Floor of the
‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Respondents
4. Laishram Ibechaobi Devi, aged about 82 years, W/o (L)
Laishram Nimai Singh, residing at Second Floor of the
‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal P.S.
City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
Page 4 of 25

5. Laishram (N) R.K. (O) Chandrasakhi Devi, aged about
63 years, D/o (L) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of
Keishamthong Top Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur(now deceased represented by her
legal heirs).
(i) Smt. Sagolshem (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol) Sunita
Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o Sagolshem
Ibohanbi Singh, resident of Keishamthong
Moirang Ningthou Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
(ii) Smt. Nongmeikapam (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol)
Rajlakshmi Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o
Nongmeikapam Budhichandra Singh, resident of
Keishamthong Moirang Ningthou Leirak, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iii) Smt. Okram (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol) Tamphasana
Devi, aged about 40 years, W/o Okram Ratnesh
Singh, resident of Kwakeithel Moirang Purel, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iv) Shri Rajkumar Indubhushan Singh, aged about 38
years, S/o(Late) Smt. Laishram (N) R.K. (O)
Chandrasakhi Devi, resident of Keishamthong Top
Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
6. Laishram (N) Jandhabi Devi, aged about 60 years, D/o
(Late) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of Second Floor
of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
7. Laishram (N) Binashakhi Devi, aged about 58 years, D/o
(L) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of Sagolband Bijoy
Govinda, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
… Proforma Responden ts
Page 5 of 25

With
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 40 of 2017
1. Smt. Laishram Ningol Sujita Devi, aged about 58 years,
D/o (Late) L. Nimai Singh of Sagolband Moirang Leirak,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur (W/o Ksh. Dhirendra Singh of Chingamakha
Oinam Leirak, Opp. Manipur College, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur).
2. Laishram Saratchandra @ Sana, aged about 52 years,
S/o (Late) L. Nimai Singh of Keishamthong Maning
Longjam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
……Petitioners
Vs.
1. Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandra Singh, aged about 56
years, S/o (Late) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of
Second floor of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur (now deceased represented by his legal heirs).
(i) Smt. Laishram (O) Kamala Devi, aged about 61
years, W/o (Late) Laishram Modhu @
Modhuchandra Singh now residing at ‘JMJ’
Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal,
P.S. City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(ii) Laishram (N) Longjam (O) Kavita Devi, aged
about 39 years, W/o L. Ibotombi Singh, a resident
of Singjamei Mayengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iii) Laishram Mickey, aged about 35 years, S/o (Late)
Laishram Modhu @ Modhucahndra Singh, a
resident of ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
Page 6 of 25

(iv) Laishram Karisma Devi, aged about 29 years, S/o
(Late) Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandra Singh
now residing at ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
2. Laishram Micky, aged about 29 years, S/o (Late)
Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandrra Singh, a resident of
Second Floor of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
3. Laishram Jugol Singh, aged about 20 years, S/o (Late)
Bikramcha Singh, now residing at Second Floor of the
‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Respondents
4. Laishram Ibechaobi Devi, aged about 82 years, W/o (L)
Laishram Nimai Singh, residing at Second Floor of the
‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal P.S.
City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Laishram (N) R.K. (O) Chandrasakhi Devi, aged about
63 years, D/o (L) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of
Keishamthong Top Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur(now deceased represented by her
legal heirs).
(i) Smt. Sagolshem (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol) Sunita
Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o Sagolshem
Ibohanbi Singh, resident of Keishamthong
Moirang Ningthou Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
(ii) Smt. Nongmeikapam (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol)
Rajlakshmi Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o
Nongmeikapam Budhichandra Singh, resident of
Keishamthong Moirang Ningthou Leirak, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iii) Smt. Okram (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol) Tamphasana
Devi, aged about 40 years, W/o Okram Ratnesh
Page 7 of 25

Singh, resident of Kwakeithel Moirang Purel, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iv) Shri Rajkumar Indubhushan Singh, aged about 38
years, S/o Late Smt. Laishram (N) R.K. (O)
Chandrasakhi Devi, resident of Keishamthong Top
Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
6. Laishram (N) Jandhabi Devi, aged about 60 years, D/o
(Late) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of Second Floor
of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
7. Laishram (N) Binashakhi Devi, aged about 58 years, D/o
(L) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of Sagolband Bijoy
Govinda, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
ts
… Proforma Responden
With
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 41 of 2017
1. Smt. Laishram Ningol Sujita Devi, aged about 58 years,
D/o (Late) L. Nimai Singh of Sagolband Moirang Leirak,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur (W/o Ksh. Dhirendra Singh of Chingamakha
Oinam Leirak, Opp. Manipur College, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur).
2. Laishram Saratchandra @ Sana, aged about 52 years,
S/o (Late) L. Nimai Singh of Keishamthong Maning
Longjam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
……Petitioners
Vs.
1. Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandra Singh, aged about 56
years, S/o (Late) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of
Second floor of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur (now deceased represented by his legal heirs).
Page 8 of 25

(i) Smt. Laishram (O) Kamala Devi, aged about 61
years, W/o (Late) Laishram Modhu @
Modhuchandra Singh now residing at ‘JMJ’
Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal,
P.S. City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(ii) Laishram (N) Longjam (O) Kavita Devi, aged
about 39 years, W/o L. Ibotombi Singh, a resident
of Singjamei Mayengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iii) Laishram Mickey, aged about 35 years, S/o (Late)
Laishram Modhu @ Modhucahndra Singh, a
resident of ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar,
P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
(iv) Laishram Karisma Devi, aged about 29 years, S/o
(Late) Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandra Singh
now residing at ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
2. Laishram Micky, aged about 29 years, S/o (Late)
Laishram Modhu @ Modhuchandrra Singh, a resident of
Second Floor of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona
Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
3. Laishram Jugol Singh, aged about 20 years, S/o (Late)
Bikramcha Singh, now residing at Second Floor of the
‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Respondents
4. Laishram Ibechaobi Devi, aged about 82 years, W/o (L)
Laishram Nimai Singh, residing at Second Floor of the
‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O. Imphal P.S.
City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Laishram (N) R.K. (O) Chandrasakhi Devi, aged about
63 years, D/o (L) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of
Keishamthong Top Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
Page 9 of 25

West District, Manipur(now deceased represented by her
legal heirs).
(i) Smt. Sagolshem (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol) Sunita
Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o Sagolshem
Ibohanbi Singh, resident of Keishamthong
Moirang Ningthou Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur.
(ii) Smt. Nongmeikapam (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol)
Rajlakshmi Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o
Nongmeikapam Budhichandra Singh, resident of
Keishamthong Moirang Ningthou Leirak, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iii) Smt. Okram (Ongbi) R.K. (Ningol) Tamphasana
Devi, aged about 40 years, W/o Okram Ratnesh
Singh, resident of Kwakeithel Moirang Purel, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(iv) Shri Rajkumar Indubhushan Singh, aged about 38
years, S/o Late Laishram (N) R.K. (O)
Chandrasakhi Devi, resident of Keishamthong Top
Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
6. Laishram (N) Jandhabi Devi, aged about 60 years, D/o
(Late) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of Second Floor
of the ‘JMJ’ Shopping Complex, Paona Bazar, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. City, Imphal West District, Manipur.
7. Laishram (N) Binashakhi Devi, aged about 58 years, D/o
(L) Laishram Nimai Singh, a resident of Sagolband Bijoy
Govinda, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
… Proforma Responden ts
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
For revision petitioners Mr. L. Shashibhushan, Sr. Advocate
instructed by Mr. Md. Fakaruddin,
Advocate.
Page 10 of 25

For respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 Mr. R.K. Milan, Advocate along with Ms. H.
Jeena, Advocate.
For respondent Nos. 4 to 7 Mr. N. Ibotombi, Senior Advocate
instructed by Mr. N. Leo, Advocate.
Date of Judgment & Order 26.05.2026
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in
this order:
Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short
Form/other references
for the sake of
brevity/convenience
and/or clarity
Full Form/Expansion
1. CRP Civil Revision Petition
2 CRPs Civil Revision Petitions
3. said original Trial Court Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) No. I, Manipur East at
Lamphelpat, Imphal
4. said Trial Court Court of Additional District Judge
(FTC), Manipur East
5. FTC Fast Track Court
6. LRs Legal Representatives
7. LR Legal Representative
8. impugned orders Orders of said Trial Court all dated
30.08.2017 in
(1) JUDL.MISC.CASE NO.
69 of 2011/1 OF 2014,
(2) JUDL.MISC.CASE NO.
68/2011/3 OF 2014,
(3) JUDL.MISC.CASE NO.
77/2011/6 OF 2014,
(4) JUDL.MISC.CASE NO.
26/2011/5 OF 2014.
9. CoD Condonation of Delay
10. Judl. Misc. Case Judicial Miscellaneous Case
Page 11 of 25

11. CPC The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
12. Limitation Act The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of
1963)
13. D1 first defendant
14. D2 second defendant
15. D3 third defendant
16. said declaratory suit Original(Declaratory) Suit No. 22
of 2006 in said original Trial Court
which was subsequently
transferred to said Trial Court and
renumbered as
Original(Declaratory) Suit No.
22/06/07/2010/3/2011/1/2014
17. ADR Alternate Dispute Resolution
[2] This common order will govern the captioned 4(four) CRPs
and dispose of the captioned 4(four) CRPs.
[3] This Court is reminded of the age-old adage ‘ blood is thicker ’
and that the adage may not be without exceptions as the case at hand
appears to be one such exception.
[4] Nearly two decades ago, to be precise, on 27.09.2006, a suit
in Original(Declaratory) Suit No. 22 of 2006(said declaratory suit) was
presented in said original Trial Court by six siblings (five sisters and one
brother), all children of late L. Nimai Singh, arraying one sibling (brother)
as D1, D1’s son as D2 and D1’s grandson (son of predeceased son) as
D3.
[5] Afore-referred said declaratory suit has multiple limbs of
prayer including declarations, partition and injunctions. Suffice to say that
the declarations, partition and injunctions sought pertain to immovable
Page 12 of 25

properties. This Court refrains from dilating more on facts, as the
captioned CRPs turn on two simple CoD applications and two
consequential/sequitur orders.
[6] Factual matrix, in a nutshell, containing essential facts
imperative for appreciating instant order (shorn of elaboration and details)
is that said declaratory suit was presented in said original Trial Court on
27.09.2006; that pending suit, D1 died and the date of demise is
15.03.2007; that the plaintiffs changed their counsel, with one set of
counsel appearing for plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and another set of counsel
appearing for plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6; that plaintiffs Nos. 5 & 6 took out Judl.
Misc. Case No. 85 of 2007 (filed on 10.07.2007) in said original Trial Court
with a prayer to bring on record the four LRs of deceased D1; that it is to
be noted that two of the four LRs were already on record as D2 & D3 but
instead of filing a memo for recording D2 & D3 as LRs the LR application
includes their names also; that thereafter on 16.11.2007, plaintiff Nos. 5
& 6 filed another Judl. Misc. Case being Judl. Misc. No. 145 of 2007 with
a prayer to amend Judl. Misc. Case No. 85 of 2007; that thereafter, the
jurisdictional District Court made an order dated 28.10.2009 transferring
said declaratory suit from said original Trial Court to said Trial Court; that
the jurisdictional District Court thereafter made another order dated
29.01.2010 directing transfer of entire suit files and records from said
original Trial Court to said Trial Court and in and vide this order the
jurisdictional District Court fixed 26.02.2010 as the date for appearance of
Page 13 of 25

parties before said Trial Court; that according to plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6, who
are revision petitioners before this Court, plaintiffs 5 and 6 went over to
the said Trial Court on 26.02.2010 but they were informed that records
had not been received; that thereafter, said Trial Court made an order
dated 26.03.2010 stating that there was no appearance on behalf of the
plaintiffs but as there was a correction/alteration in the date of
appearance, issued notice to plaintiffs directing them to appear on
26.04.2010; that it is the case of plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6 that they did not
receive any notice from said Trial Court; that the plaintiffs 5 & 6 did not
appear before said Trial Court on 26.04.2010 as according to the plaintiffs
5 & 6 they were not aware of this date; that thereafter, on 18.06.2011,
the two applications taken out by plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6 viz., Judl. Misc. Case
No. 85 of 2007 and Judl. Misc. Case No. 145 of 2007 for brining on record
LRs of deceased D1 and for amendment of the LR application respectively
were dismissed for default; that according to plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6, they
gained knowledge about this dismissal of their applications (dismissal for
default) only on 21.11.2011; that according to plaintiffs, immediately
thereafter, i.e., on 23.11.2011, plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6 took out two Judl. Misc.
Cases being Judl. Misc. Case No. 68 of 2011 & Judl. Misc. Case No. 69 of
2011 with prayers for restoration of the LR application and amendment
application which were dismissed for default on 18.06.2011; that
thereafter, realizing that the restoration applications had not been filed
within the prescribed period of limitation though it is well within the period
of limitation if date of knowledge (21.11.2011) is taken as the reckoning
Page 14 of 25

date, as a matter of abundant caution plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6 filed Judl. Misc.
Case No. 77/2011/6 of 2014 and Judl. Misc. Case No. 26/2011/5 of 2014
with prayers for CoD (if any) qua restoration applications filed on
23.11.2011, these CoD applications came to be dismissed by the said Trial
Court in and vide impugned orders which also disposed of applications
sought to be restored as ‘ closed ’ owing to dismissal of CoD applications;
that the aggrieved plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6 have filed captioned CRPs arraying
defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as respondents and co-plaintiffs 1 to 4 as proforma
respondents.
[7] In the hearing today, Mr. L. Shashibushan, learned Senior
Advocate instructed by Mr. Md. Fakaruddin, learned counsel on record for
the revision petitioners, Mr. R.K. Milan, learned counsel along with Ms. H.
Jeena, learned counsel for the defendants in the Trial Court (respondent
Nos.1 to 3 in captioned CRPs) and Mr. Leo N., learned counsel led by Mr.
N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate for co-plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 in the Trial
Court (respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in captioned CRPs) are before this Court.
[8] This Court heard out all the afore-referred learned counsel
and learned senior counsel.
[9] A careful perusal of the impugned order brings to light that
said Trial Court has dismissed the CoD applications on two grounds. One
ground is, the counsel for parties were present on 21.01.2010, they were
directed to appear before the said Trial Court on 26.03.2010 (directed by
the jurisdictional District Judge) but on 26.03.2010 neither the plaintiffs
Page 15 of 25

nor their counsel were before the said Trial Court. The second reason is,
in the CoD applications, the applicants (plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6) have not
mentioned the number of days sought to be condoned and the prayer
merely seeks CoD, if any.
[10] Mr. L. Shashibushan, learned Senior Advocate for the
revision petitioners, submitted that the restoration applications were filed
well within time, if date of knowledge, i.e., 21.11.2011, is taken as the
reckoning date and the CoD applications were filed only as a matter of
abundant caution and this is the reason why the CoD prayers merely seek
CoD, if any, without going into the details of exact numbers of days sought
to be condoned. To be noted, this is regarding the second ground on which
CoD applications were dismissed. As regards the first ground on which
CoD applications were dismissed, learned senior counsel for revision
petitioners submitted that neither the plaintiffs nor the plaintiff s’ counsel
appeared before the said Trial Court on 26.03.2010 but on 26.03.2010,
the said Trial Court made an order clearly recording that the counsel for
defendants is present but the plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel are not before
the Court and directed notice to be issued to plaintiffs requiring them to
appear on 26.04.2010 on the ground that there is an alteration/correction
in the earlier order dated 29.01.2010 regarding the date of appearance.
Learned senior counsel pointed out that there is no mention about this
26.03.2010 order in the impugned order. It is also his emphatic say that
notice to plaintiffs envisaged by the 26.03.2010 order was never received
Page 16 of 25

by the plaintiffs. A scanned reproduction of this 26.03.2010 order made
by said Trial Court is as follows:
Page 17 of 25

[11] Mr. R.K. Milan, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
(defendants before said Trial Court) submitted that the CoD applications
are predicated on the averment that the CoD applicants came to know
about the 18.06.2011 dismissal for default orders only on 21.11.2011 (on
going over to said Trial Court and checking the records) but they have not
produced any evidence or deposed to establish that 21.11.2011 is the date
of knowledge qua CoD applicants. The second point raised by Mr. R.K.
Milan, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants before said
Trial Court) is paragraph Nos. 15 & 16 of the CRP make allegations against
the learned Presiding Officer of the said Trial Court and such allegations
should not be entertained without a separate sworn affidavit.
[12] As regards proforma respondent Nos. 4 to 7(plaintiff Nos. 1
to 4 in said Trial Court), Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel submitted
that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 no doubt did not take out restoration
applications/CoD applications as they would anyway sink or sail with
plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6.
[13] In the aforesaid backdrop of rival contentions, this Court
carefully examined the case files, copies of the records received from the
said Trial Court and also considered the arguments of all the learned
counsel.
[14] The first point turns on plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 not taking out
applications. In this regard, reverting to the prayers in the Trial Court, as
already alluded to supra, one of the prayers is for partition in equal shares.
Page 18 of 25

As regards partition suits, there are no plaintiffs or defendants. The
dominus litis concept does not apply to partition suits. Though the said
suit is not a typical partition suit, as partition is one of the prayers, the
dominus litis concept will not apply.
[15] To be noted, the parties are coparcener/siblings and
children/grandchild of one of the siblings. Be that as it may, the submission
that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 will sink or sail with plaintiff Nos. 5 & 6 is
acceptable, as the applications are for brining on record LRs of deceased
D1, amendment to the LR application, dismissal of the same for default,
restoration and CoD qua restoration. This answers the first point as
regards plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 not having filed applications.
[16] This takes this Court to the second point i.e., the point that
turns on whether 21.11.2011 is the date of knowledge of dismissal for
default. If 21.11.2011 is taken as reckoning date by accepting that the
same is the date of knowledge of the CoD applications, CoD is really not
necessary. However, CoD has been filed albeit as a matter of abundant
caution, the same has resulted in the impugned orders and the impugned
orders have been assailed in captioned CRPs. This Article 227 Court
exercising supervisory powers is of the considered view that it is really not
necessary to go into proving 21.11.2011 to be the date of knowledge, as
even if 18.06.2011, being the date on which the applications were
dismissed for default, is taken as the reckoning date, 30 days therefrom
elapsed on 18.07.2011 and the restoration applications were filed on
Page 19 of 25

23.11.2011, which means that the delay sought to be condoned is barely
127 days that too in seeking restoration of innocuous applications for
bringing on record undisputed LRs of D1 (who is none other than blood
brother/sibling of plaintiffs) and an amendment to LR application, more so
when these two applications were dismissed for default in the
circumstances about which there is allusion elsewhere supra in this order.
This Court now proceeds on the basis that there is a CoD application and
the impugned order has been made. This puts an end to and douses the
arguments predicated on date of knowledge i.e., 21.11.2011 being true.
[17] This takes this Article 227 Court to CoD. In a CoD application,
ideally the number of days sought to be condoned should be set out with
clarity and specificity and there can be no two opinions on this point.
Nonetheless, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
close blood relationship of the parties and the nature of the suit i.e., one
of the limbs of the suit being partition, this Court makes a mild exception
and exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, computes the
number of days delay sought to be condoned. As already alluded to in the
earlier part of this order, the number of days sought to be condoned is
127 days. As regards 127 days delay, the case of the CoD applicants that
they did not receive notice from the said Trial Court about the appearance
on 26.04.2010 pursuant to said Trial Court order dated 26.03.2010 has
neither been disputed nor controverted. This means that there is nothing
to demonstrate that the plaintiffs were not aware that 26.04.2010 is the
Page 20 of 25

date fixed for their appearance. This adequately explains non-appearance
of plaintiffs/plaintiffs’ counsel in said Trial Court on 18.06.2011 when the
LR and amendment applications came to be dismissed for default. Absence
of knowledge of date of hearing and any knowledge later in a suit of this
nature is sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for CoD, more so for condonation of 127 days delay in the light of
innocuous applications i.e., applications to bring on record undisputed LRs
of D1 who died pending suit and application for amending LR application.
As the application for brining LRs on record is not only innocuous but
imperative too, 127 days delay certainly deserves to be condoned.
[18] This takes this Court to the last point raised by Mr. R.K.
Milan, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants before said
Trial Court) i.e., that paragraph Nos. 15 & 16 of the CRP made allegations
against learned Presiding Officer of said Trial Court. Mr. Md. Fakaruddin,
learned counsel on record for the CRP petitioners, expressed profound
regret for the contents of paragraph Nos.15 & 16. After expressing
profound regret and also tendering apology qua the learned Presiding
Officer of the said Trial Court, learned counsel submitted that he will
withdraw paragraph Nos. 15 & 16. Saying so, learned counsel made
endorsements in the case file. Scanned reproduction of these paragraph
Nos. 15 & 16 together with endorsements are as follows:
Page 21 of 25

Page 22 of 25

This puts an end to the argument pertaining to allegations
regarding learned Presiding Officer. The most important and significant
point in this regard is, even if paragraph Nos 15 & 16 are removed from
the CRP, that does not in any way take away the other grounds on which
this Court is interfering with the order of the said Trial Court.
[19] This Court makes it clear that, in CoD applications the
number of days delay sought to be condoned should be set out with
complete clarity, exactitude and specificity. In the case at hand, a mild
exception has been made considering the nature of the matter, the close
blood relationship of the parties and the pendency of the suit which
includes a partition prayer for over 2(two) decades. Therefore, this order
Page 23 of 25

will not serve as an across the Board precedent in all and every case where
the applicants do not mention the number of days sought to be condoned
in CoD applications.
[20] Before concluding, this Court reminds itself of the obtaining
legal position that the earlier principle that every day ’ s delay sought to be
condoned should be explained has subsequently been watered down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court by a long line of authorities inter alia by saying
that the same is a wooden approach. In the case at hand, this Court is
convinced that 127 days qua restoration of innocuous applications to bring
on record undisputed LRs of a litigant who died pending suit and
amendment to LR application which were dismissed for default owing to
plaintiffs not receiving notice of hearing date in spite of a judicial order, is
certainly condonable on the ground that the CoD applicants were not
aware that the said Trial Court had directed them to appear on 26.04.2010
as order dated 26.03.2010 directing and fixing 26.04.2010 as a date of
appearance was never received by the plaintiffs. To be noted, there is no
contra material in this regard.
[21] Before writing the concluding paragraph, as this court is
interfering with the impugned orders and as this Court will be setting aside
the impugned orders, this Court deems it appropriate to write that the
said Trial Court, will do well to take up the two decades old said declaratory
suit, on a priority basis, subject of course to other cases and other official
work of the Trial Court and dispose of the said declaratory suit as
Page 24 of 25

expeditiously as the Board and official work of the said Trial Court would
permit. It would also be desirable to explore the possibility of resorting to
mediation. This latter/second observation is made to make it clear that
former/first observation of this Court qua expeditious disposal should not
be construed as excluding resort to mediation or any other ADR
mechanism.
[22] Ergo, sequitur is, all 4(four) captioned CRPs are allowed and
common impugned orders, all dated 30.08.2017 made in Judl. Misc. Case
No. 69 of 2011/1 of 2014, Judl. Misc. Case No. 68/2011/3 of 2014, Judl.
Misc. Case No. 77/2011/6 of 2014 and Judl. Misc. Case No. 26/2011/5 of
2014 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge (F.T.C) Manipur
East is set-aside. Let the copies of the suit records be sent back to the
said Trial Court. Considering the close relationship of the parties and the
nature of the matter, this Court refrains from imposing costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Indrajeet
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.
Page 25 of 25