Manipur High Court
Khaidem Aiso Singh vs Hijam Prabhabati Devi And Another on 5 August, 2025
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:51 +05'30'
Sl. Nos. 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 12 of 2024
Khaidem Aiso Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
Hijam Prabhabati Devi and another
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
ORDER
05.08.2025
Mr. S. Abung Meetei, learned counsel for the petitioner is
present before the court physically. However, there is no representation for
the respondents either through video conferencing or present physically
before the Court.
The proceeding in CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 12 of 2024 has been
initiated as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in this
present proceeding, the petitioner is seeking for modifying the impugned
order dated 21.12.2023 passed in Civil (Exe.) Case No. 53 of 2019 but the
learned counsel for the petitioner in this matter is referring to certain
citations of Ram Kanvar/Appellant vs. Ram Ricchhpal Banarsi
Dass/Respondent reported in (2003) AIR (Punjab) 38. Whereas, in
this citation, addressed the scope of Section 60(c) of CPC inclusive of Section
60(1) but Section 60 (c) of CPC is in respect of attachment of property and
sale in execution proceedings and the same issue has been addressed in this
judgment but the learned counsel for the petitioner in this matter is seeking
for intervention of needs but in this civil revision petition seeking for
modifying the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 which is reflected in the
office notings and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner be
directed to clarify the status of Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil
Page | 1
Procedure relating to adjudication of claims or objections to the attachment
of property in detail which is stated therein.
Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid provision of law and
more particularly, keeping in view the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and inclusive of the reference of judgment i.e.
Union of India vs. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance & Ors. decided on 22
March, 1976 reported in 1976 AIR 1163 wherein it addressed the scope
of Provident Funds Act, 1925, under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act, the
Provident fund and allied amounts fall due, whether exclusion from
attachability continues-Objection to attachment taken pro bono publico by
Union of India, if valid-‘Locus standi’, scope of.
These two reliances have been referred by the learned counsel
for the petitioner for seeking intervention in respect of modifying the
impugned order dated 21.12.2023.
Therefore, keeping in view the provision of Order 21 Rule 58
of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is deemed appropriate that the learned
counsel for the petitioner be directed to clarify the status of the said
provision of law.
Accordingly, made an observation.
List this matter on 02.09.2025.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
Page | 2