Manipur High Court
Unemployed Youth Shop Owners vs Robert Kshetrimayum & 12 Ors on 12 June, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.06.20 Clubbed
16:30:45 +05'30' With Cont.Cas(C)No.5 of 2023
With MC(WP(C))No.339 of 2025
With MC(WP(C))No.343 of 2025
With WP(C)No.361 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(Cont.Cas(C))No.43 of 2025
Ref: Cont.Cas(C)No.5 of 2023
Unemployed Youth Shop Owners.
Applicant
Vs.
Robert Kshetrimayum & 12 ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
(O R D E R)
12.06.2025.
Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the
applicant whereas in this matter, the learned senior counsel, Mr. Y.
Nirmolchand for the respondents is on record.
This proceeding has been initiated keeping in view the provision
of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and whereby in that application seeking for
impleadment of Shri Mayanglambam Rajkumar Singh, IAS in the aforesaid
contempt proceeding.
Whereas, the learned senior counsel for the applicant prayed
that this court may be gracious enough to passing an appropriate order
2
allowing for impleadment of Shri Mayanglambam Rajkumar Singh, IAS and be
arrayed as the proposed respondent’s presence as respondent No.14 as
necessary and proper party in the present proceeding and without which the
present contempt petition will not be able to reach finality and also to meet
the ends of justice.
In this application, it is consisting of paras 1 to 10 and the
present application has been filed in connection with the contempt petition in
Cont. Cas(C)No.5 of 2023 and whereby in that contempt proceeding seeking
for intervention for willful disobedience of the order dated 03.06.2022
rendered by the learned Single Judge on the writ side in WP(C)No.529 of
2016, the same has been specifically stated in para 2 of this application. It is
further contended that it has come to the knowledge of the applicant that in
the steps/process for compliance of the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge on the writ side, an eviction case i.e. an Eviction
Case No.13 of 2024 has been registered and the pendency of the same has
become a stumbling block for compliance of the order rendered on 03.06.2022
passed in WP(C)No. 529 of 2016 and the same has been stated in detail in
par 4 of this application.
It is further contended that in support of this contention and
consideration of the grounds as stated in this application, the learned senior
counsel in this matter is emphasizing the Annexure-A/1 and Annexure-A/2 i.e.
the true copy of the Eviction Case No.13 of 2024 dated 02.01.2025 and also
the last proceeding dated 14.02.2025. These annexures have been produced
3
herein for the purpose of perusal and also for consideration of the grounds
urged in this application.
It is further contended that the vital documents Annexure-A/3,
Annexure-A/4 have been facilitated in this matter i.e. the true copy of the
order dated 31.01.2025 and 27.03.2025 passed in Cont.Cas(C)No.5 of 2023
for the purpose of perusal.
It is further contended that one Annexure-A/5 i.e. the true copy
of the Legal Notice dated 01.04.2025 has been facilitated in this matter for
consideration of the grounds which has been urged in that application for
seeking impleadment to be arrayed as respondent No. 14 in the aforesaid
contempt proceeding.
This application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC
seeking for impleadment of the proposed party be arrayed as respondent
No.14 in the aforesaid contempt proceeding. However, the proposed
respondent No. 14 being the necessary party and therefore, in the instant
case, referred applicant be arrayed as respondent to the aforesaid contempt
proceeding whereas Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, enabling the court to add any
person as a party, if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary
in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and
also settle all the questions involved in a proceeding and also to avoid
multiplicity of the proceeding is also one of the object of the said provision of
law and as such, there was a judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reported in AIR 1999 SCC 976 of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge,
4
whereas the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is that it empowers the court
to substitute the party to the proceeding relating to the adjudicating process
of the issue in between the party to the rank of the either in the applicant or
in the rank of the respondent.
However, keeping in view the scope of the aforesaid provision
of the Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and also all the grounds urged in this application
are concerned, it is deemed appropriate that the aforesaid application is
required to be considered in the interest of justice. Consequently, the
proceeding in MC(Cont.cas(C))No.43 of 2025 is hereby allowed.
Consequent upon the disposal of the said application, it is
deemed appropriate that the counsel for the applicant be directed to carry
out the amendments in the rank of the respondent No.14 in the original
contempt proceeding as in the Cont.Cas(C)No.5 of 2023 in accordance with
rules and submitting the amended petition in respect of the Cont. Cas(C)
No.05 of 2023 for the purpose of reference.
Keeping in view the submission made by the learned senior
counsel for the applicant, it is deemed appropriate that the process shall be
issued through speed post in accordance with law and the Registry is directed
to do so.
However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned
senior counsel, Mr. M. Hemchandra for the aforesaid matters are concerned
that similar issue is involved in between the petitioners and the respondents
as in WP(C)No.361 of 2025 and inclusive of the proceeding in
5
MC(WP(C))No.343 of 2025 inclusive of the proceeding in MC(WP(C))No.339
of 2025 with the proceeding in Cont.Cas(C)No.5 of 2023. Therefore, it is
deemed appropriate in these matters that the Registry be directed to list all
these proceedings along with the contempt proceeding.
Consequently, list all these matters on 18.07.2025.
CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom