Chongtham Shantibala Devi vs High Court Of Manipur Represented By Its on 15 July, 2025

Manipur High Court

Chongtham Shantibala Devi vs High Court Of Manipur Represented By Its on 15 July, 2025

Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma

Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma

              Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
          SINGH
DRA SINGH Date: 2025.07.16
          00:21:37 +05'30'
                                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                             AT IMPHAL

                                                   MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 21 of 2024

                                Chongtham Shantibala Devi
                                                                                                  ... Applicant
                                                                  - Versus -

                                High Court of Manipur represented by its
                                Registrar General & 4 Ors.
                                                                                              ... Respondents


                                                         B E F O R E
                                         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K. SOMASHEKAR
                                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA


                                                               O R D E R

[K. Somashekar, CJ]
15.07.2025

[1] Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Lokhendro is

present before this Court physically. Similarly, learned senior counsel for the

High Court of Manipur, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar and learned Deputy Government

Advocate for the State, Mr. W. Niranjit are also present before this Court

physically.

[2] This miscellaneous application proceeding has been filed

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of 265 days in

preferring an appeal. This miscellaneous review petition has been filed under

the aforesaid provision for seeking condonation of 265 days to file an appeal

in Appeal No. 2174 of 2024 to challenge the order on various grounds.

[3] Whereas, the MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 21 of 2024 has been filed

by the applicant and in the proceeding also seeking for condonation of delay

of 265 days in filing the appeal No. 2174 of 2024.

Page 1|3
[4] The learned senior counsel for the High Court of Manipur, Mr.

Kh. Tarunkumar submits that the miscellaneous review petition initiated by

the applicant has not been assailing the justifiable reasons for seeking

condonation of delay. However, the learned counsel for the applicant is

submitting that it is only seeking for condonation of delay for facilitating

medical ground and on this premises seeking to allow the application.

[5] Whereas, keeping in view of the Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is

concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal & Ors.

Vs. State Tax Officer & Anr. dated 31.10.2023. In this matter, para No. 9

made an observation as thus –

“9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was)
“a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted,
is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by
an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and
reversal of result……… A review in the Counsel’s mentation cannot
repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in
peace.”

In the same judgment, para No. 11 reveals thus –

11. In Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others , this
Court made very pivotal observations: – “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error
which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face
of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision
to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be
remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an
appeal in disguise.”

[6] Therefore, keeping in view of the ratios rendered by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is deemed appropriate that the ground

which has sought in this present application does not avail any substances

to seek intervention. Consequently, the present application is hereby

dismissed.

Page 2|3
[7] However, in the review petition making an application under

Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking for condonation of delay of 265 days on

medical grounds.

[8] However, the learned senior counsel, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar

and also the learned Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. W. Niranjit submit

that the applicant/petitioner in this matter is attaining superannuation and

even though the condonation of delay application which has been filed by

the applicant in this matter, be considered, no purpose will be served.

[9] Consequently, this application is hereby dismissed.

                              JUDGE                  CHIEF JUSTICE

Bipin




                                                             Page 3|3