Manipur High CourtCivil Procedure and EvidenceCivil Law

Manipur HC Calls CRTM’s “Proceed On Merits” Plea Superfluous, Says ₹1.27-Crore House-Construction Suit Continues

Centre for Rural Technology Mission , Manipurv.Akoijam Ranbirsana Singh and 3 Ors

Manipur HC Calls CRTM’s “Proceed On Merits” Plea Superfluous, Says ₹1.27-Crore House-Construction Suit Continues. Centre for Rural Technology Mission , Manipur vs Akoijam Ranbirsana Singh and 3 Ors. Manipur High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether dismissal of CRTM’s application seeking leave to proceed on the merits adversely affected its rights in the pending suit.

The court held

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.

It also directed

It directed the trial court to proceed with and conclude the suit as expeditiously as its business permitted, subject to prior suits and pending matters.

The connected miscellaneous application was also closed as otiose; no costs were ordered.

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. 5–6

After CRTM filed its written statement late, the trial court allowed its application to condone the 113-day delay on 3 June 2026.

pp. 8–10

CRTM 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. 15–20

By the time the revision was considered, issues had been framed and the suit was proceeding to evidence.

pp. 10–13

02Issues

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 · ¶ 6

ii.Whether the revision should be entertained when the suit was already proceeding on the merits and the challenged order caused no prejudice to CRTM.

¶ 7

03Law 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. 10

The 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. 10

The 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.

¶ 6–7

Provisions 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. 10–13

In 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.

¶ 6

The 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.

¶ 7

05Holding

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, 9

It directed the trial court to proceed with and conclude the suit as expeditiously as its business permitted, subject to prior suits and pending matters.

¶ 8

The connected miscellaneous application was also closed as otiose; no costs were ordered.

¶ 9
Manipur High Court

Original Court PDF

Centre for Rural Technology Mission , ManipurvsAkoijam Ranbirsana Singh and 3 Ors

Manipur High Court · October 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment