Manipur High Court
Phuritsabam Shanti Singh vs Phuritsabam Tolpishak Singh & 6 Ors on 17 April, 2025
KHOIROM Digitally
KHOIROM
signed by
Item No. 37
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA SINGH
Date: 2025.04.21
DRA SINGH 16:38:39 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 42 of 2024
Phuritsabam Shanti Singh
... Petitioner
- Versus -
Phuritsabam Tolpishak Singh & 6 Ors.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR
O R D E R
17.04.2025
[1] Heard Mr. Kh. Shanta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. LN Ngamba, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
[2] The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 63 of 2023
wherein, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 praying for condonation of 2 years, 2 months and 5 days delay in
filing the Revenue revision Petition against the order dated 23.12.2020 passed
in Mutation Case No. 601/SDC/IW(C)/2020 passed by the Ld. SDC, Imphal
West, Central, Manipur. The said application was rejected by the Presiding
Officer, Revenue Tribunal, Manipur and challenging the same, the present
petition has been filed before this Court.
Page 1|3
[3] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contented that
though it has been clearly raised ground in the revenue record that the
petitioner had a knowledge only from the date of mutation and therefore, came
to know on the land record in the name of Shri Ph. Tolpishak Singh and
therefore, only from the date of knowledge, appeal has been filed before the
Ld. Tribunal. This aspect has not been considered by the Ld. Tribunal.
[4] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that
the petitioner has already filed a suit being O.S. No. 40 of 2024 and the same
has been pending as against the same respondent before the Ld. Civil Judge
(Jr. Divn.), Imphal West – I, Manipur. In such circumstances, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent seeks for dismissal of the civil revision
petition.
[5] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the
ground that challenging the order passed before the Ld. Tribunal by way of
appeal along with condon delay application as against the order passed in the
Mutation Case which has been passed in the year 2020 and the according to
the petitioner, he was not aware of the order passed in the year 2020 which
he came to know that the aforesaid order has been mutated in the revenue
record at the time of digitization of the record and therefore, the order of the
Ld. Tribunal is incorrect.
Page 2|3
[6] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner also admitted that the O.S. No. 40 of 2024 is pending before the Ld.
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Imphal West – I, Manipur, the petitioner can very well
seek remedy before the Civil Court. The learned counsel for the respondent
has also no objection stating that the petitioner can agitate the remedy before
the Civil Court.
[7] In such consensus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
order and therefore, dismiss the civil revision petition. However, the Civil Court
is to consider independently without any observation made in the order passed
by the Ld. Tribunal.
[8] With the above observation, the present petition stands
dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Bipin
Page 3|3
[ad_1]
Source link