01Facts
The respondents filed a suit against the Centre for Rural Technology Mission, Manipur (CRTM), seeking, among other reliefs, recovery of construction costs of ₹1,27,35,000.
pp. 5–6After CRTM filed its written statement late, the trial court allowed its application to condone the 113-day delay on 3 June 2026.
pp. 8–10CRTM had also filed a separate application under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking leave to proceed on the merits; the trial court dismissed that application on the same date.
pp. 15–20By the time the revision was considered, issues had been framed and the suit was proceeding to evidence.
pp. 10–1302Issues
i.Whether dismissal of CRTM’s application seeking leave to proceed on the merits adversely affected its rights in the pending suit.
pp. 15–20 · ¶ 6ii.Whether the revision should be entertained when the suit was already proceeding on the merits and the challenged order caused no prejudice to CRTM.
¶ 703Law Applied
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC governs the filing of a written statement and permits the court, in appropriate circumstances, to extend the time for filing it; Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers.
p. 10The Court also observed that citing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, instead of the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, did not by itself disentitle an applicant to relief or deprive the court of power to grant it.
p. 10The Court did not decide any broader question about the application of these provisions; it resolved the revision on the basis that the impugned order did not affect the parties’ rights or impede the trial.
¶ 6–7Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151
04Reasoning
The delay in filing CRTM’s written statement had already been condoned, and the suit had proceeded to issue-framing and witness examination.
pp. 10–13In that procedural context, the additional application seeking leave to proceed on the merits was unnecessary. Its dismissal did not alter the effect of the order allowing the written statement or prevent CRTM from defending the suit.
¶ 6The Court therefore found that entertaining the revision would serve no useful purpose and could delay a trial in which the plaintiffs had expressed an interest in expedition.
¶ 705Holding
The Court closed the revision, holding that the impugned order did not affect either side’s rights or contentions and that the suit should continue on its merits.
¶ 7, 9It directed the trial court to proceed with and conclude the suit as expeditiously as its business permitted, subject to prior suits and pending matters.
¶ 8The connected miscellaneous application was also closed as otiose; no costs were ordered.
¶ 9Original Court PDF
Centre for Rural Technology Mission , ManipurvsAkoijam Ranbirsana Singh and 3 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
