Manipur High Court
Keisham Priyokumar Singh vs Soibam Chaobihal Devi on 29 May, 2025
KABORAMBA Digitally
KABORAMBAM
signed by
M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2025.06.04
SINGH 17:58:40 +05'30' Clubbed with
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 52 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 51 of 2024
Keisham Priyokumar Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
Soibam Chaobihal Devi
Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
(COMMON ORDER)
29.05.2025
[1] Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Civil Revision
Petitions, CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 51 of 2024 connected with CRP (C.R.P.
Art. 227) No. 52 of 2024, namely, Md. Sahidur Rahaman is present before
the Court physically securing the service of learned senior counsel, namely,
Mr. S. Rupachandra, who is also present before the Court physically,
similarly, Mr. Th. Henba, learned counsel for the respondent is also present
before the Court physically.
[2] CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 51 of 2024 has been filed
challenging the order passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Imphal West dated 07.10.2024 rejecting Judl. Misc. Case No. 40 of 2024
filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 52 of 2024 has been filed
challenging the order passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Page | 1
Imphal West dated 07.10.2024 disposing of Judl. Misc. Case No. 39 of 2024
filed under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC as has become infructuous in view of
rejection of Judl. Misc. Case No. 40 of 2024.
Whereas, both the Judl. Misc. Cases arise out of Original Suit
No. 38 of 2022 which was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and both the
orders dated 07.10.2024 are challenged under these Civil Revision Petitions
and as the issues arising relating to the proceeding in Original Suit No. 38
of 2022 are one and same, therefore, to avoid conflicts of opinion and
moreso, these civil revision petitions have been taken up for disposal by
common order.
[3] CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 51 of 2024 has been filed seeking
intervention of the order rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Imphal West in Judl Misc. Case 40 of 2024 in Original Suit No.
38 of 2022 dated 07.10.2024 by rejecting the aforesaid misc. application
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of delay
of 67 days in filing a necessary application, namely, Judl. Misc. Case 39 of
2024 under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing
rejoinder/replication to the written Statement of the defendant.
[4] Whereas the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Imphal
West has rendered the order dated 07.10.2024 by rejecting the aforesaid
application, but in the grounds which have been urged by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner and also equally learned counsel for the
respondent respectively in the aforesaid proceeding as initiated in respect
Page | 2
of challenging the orders rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Imphal West for rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act and wherein it is indicating that the filing of such a
condone delay application is not required while filing the application for
seeking leave to file rejoinder/replication, however, due to some bonafide
mistake and also inadvertence, the applicant has filed the aforesaid
application for seeking condonation of delay in proceeding of Judl. Misc.
Case No. 40 of 2024 at the time of filing leave application for fling the
rejoinder/replication.
[5] Whereas the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Imphal
West ought to have rejected the said application in Judl Misc. Case No. 40
of 2024 and also the second contention that the very application which has
been filed by the plaintiff/applicant is not maintainable and these are all
the observation that have been made by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Imphal West.
[6] Whereas in the aforesaid proceeding and whereby the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeking for consideration of the
grounds which are urged in this matter and further seeking for setting
aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Court of Civil
Judge (Senior Division) Imphal West as were the case in Original Suit No.
38 of 2022 which is pending for adjudicatory process in between the
plaintiff and defendant in respect of the suit as being initiated.
Page | 3
[7] Consequently, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
in the aforesaid petition seeking for intervention of the needs and if not
intervene in the order for setting aside the order dated 07.10.2024 in Judl
Misc. Case 40 of 2024 and there would be some miscarriage of justice, It
is however contended that the case in Original Suit No. 38 of 2022 as
initiated by the plaintiff against the defendant as sought for part
performance, these are the all the contentions as being taken by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid civil revision
petition and seeking for intervention and consideration of the grounds and
further seeking for setting aside the impugned orders rendered by the
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Imphal West in Judl. Misc. Case No.
39 of 2024 dated 07.10.2024 and also be mentioned as the proceeding in
Judl. Misc. Case No. 40 of 2024, but both the proceedings as being initiated
and also filed in respect of the proceeding in Original Suit No. 38 of 2022.
[8] Whereas, the case in CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 52 of 2024
whereby in this case, both the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
the respondent have submitted that the petitioner is the plaintiff and
wherein he has filed original suit bearing No. 38 of 2022 before the Court
of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Imphal West against the
respondent/defendant and whereby seeking for a decree for part
performance of the contract of sale of the suit land on the basis of the
written agreement dated 01.07.2016 as well as the written agreement
(Yana che) cum money receipt dated 06.07.2017 by receiving the
Page | 4
remaining amount of the sale consideration which was held in between the
agreement holders.
[9] Whereas learned counsel for the plaintiff therein who is the
petitioner in these two proceedings filed the application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, whereby seeking condonation of delay of 67 days in
filing an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC for filing a
rejoinder/replication. However, that application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act came to be rejected by assigning the reason which is
indicating in the impugned order which has been challenged in the civil
revision petition, CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 51 of 2024.
Consequent upon the rejection of the application which is
filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the other application filed under
Order VIII Rule 9 as has become infructuous and the said impugned order
has also been challenged under the civil revision petition, CRP (C.R.P. Art.
227) No. 52 of 2024 as initiated keeping in view the provision of Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
[10] Whereas keeping in view the contention made by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner and equally contention made by the
learned counsel for the respondent are concerned, it is deemed appropriate
to refer the factual matrix of the plaintiff and defendant case, however,
that the plaintiff has filed original suit against defendant seeking for part
performance of the contract of sale of the suit land on the basis of written
agreement dated 01.07.2016 as well as written agreement (yana che) cum
Page | 5
money receipt dated 06.07.2017, but these are all the issues involved in
between the plaintiff and defendant and moreso, that application filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay of
67 days but in the given peculiar facts and circumstances in the matters
are concerned, filing of the condonation of delay application does not arise
and this specific contention has been taken by the learned counsel for the
defendant/respondent.
[11] However, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this
matter submits that the delay application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act came to be dismissed and also filing an application under
order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC and in that application seeking for filing a
rejoinder/replication to the written statement filed by the defendant and it
is only for adjudicatory process of the issues in between the plaintiff and
the defendant and whatever the grounds which are taken in their plaint
and so also in their written statement, and unless the written statement or
the rejoinder, it cannot be arise for framing of an issue, but the aforesaid
original proceeding is pending for adjudicatory process between the
plaintiff and defendant and therefore, these two proceedings have to be
disposed of by common order for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, it does
not require dwelling in the details about the issues in between the plaintiff
and defendant who are in the rank of petitioner and respondent
respectively, and therefore it is deemed appropriate and also keeping in
view the provision of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure that there
is no limit to exercise the inherent power, either effecting or affecting any
Page | 6
orders under this code, that is the first limb of the said provision of law,
the second limb of the said provision of law relating to preventing the
abuse of process of law, whereas the third limb of the said provision of law
is securing the ends of justice, the aforesaid limb of the said provision of
law are applicable to both the parties to the proceeding.
[12] Whereas in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case in between the plaintiff and the defendant and where the case in
Original Suit No. 38 of 2022 is pending on the file of the Court of Civil
Judge (Senior Division) Imphal West and therefore, for disposal of these
civil revision proceedings by rendering a common order for the aforesaid
reasons, but it does not require in detail discussion and so also dwelling in
detail about the contention as being taken by the plaintiff and the
defendant in that case.
[13] The aforesaid civil revision petitions have been filed for
challenging the order passed by rejecting the application filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act and so also the order has been passed in
respect of the application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC, but
consequent upon rejection of the application filed under section 5 of the
Limitation Act and then the application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC
as has become infructuous, the same has been challenged under these
two civil revision proceedings and therefore, keeping in view the contention
as being taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent
respectively, it is deemed appropriate to passing some suitable order for
the aforesaid reasons.
Page | 7
[14] Consequently, proceeding in CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 51 of
2024 is hereby allowed, consequent upon allowing the said proceedings
that the impugned order rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Imphal West is hereby set aside, however, it is made clear that
the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking
condonation of delay does not arise and this contention as taken by the
concerned counsel for the respondent, namely, Mr. Th. Henba, is taken on
record and also made an observation.
[15] The proceeding in CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 52 of 2024 is
hereby allowed and consequent upon allowing said proceeding, that the
application filed by the applicant as under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC is
hereby considered in the interest of justice, consequently, the order
rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Imphal West is
hereby set aside and consequent upon setting aside the order that the
aforesaid application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC is hereby allowed
in the interest of justice.
[16] Consequent upon setting aside the impugned orders dated
07.10.2024, it is deemed appropriate that the plaintiff be permitted to
filing, if any rejoinder/replication in proceeding of Original Suit No. 38 of
2022 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
Page | 8
[17] However, both the aforesaid proceedings are hereby
disposed of, but whatever the observation has been made, it shall not
come in the way for disposal of the case in Original Suit No. 38 of 2022
which is pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Imphal West on merit in accordance with law.
[18] As in a given peculiar facts and circumstances in these
matters are concerned, it is deemed appropriate to state that all
contentious contentions has been kept open for both the plaintiff and the
defendant, accordingly made an observation.
Both these proceedings are hereby disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
Page | 9
[ad_1]
Source link