Rk Birjit Singh & Anr vs Rajkumar Brajabidhu Singh on 17 July, 2025

Manipur High Court

Rk Birjit Singh & Anr vs Rajkumar Brajabidhu Singh on 17 July, 2025

                                                      1
                Digitally signed by
JOHN      JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2025.07.23
          15:05:19 +05'30'




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                AT IMPHAL

                                      CRP(C.R.P. Art.227)No.18 of 2023
                   RK Birjit Singh & Anr.
                                                                               Petitioners
                                                Vs.

                   Rajkumar Brajabidhu Singh
                                                                              Respondent

BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR

(O R D E R)

17.07.2025.

[1] This Civil Revision Petition has been initiated by the petitioner

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and whereby in this

proceeding seeking for setting aside the order passed by the Civil Judge

(Sr. Div.) Bishnupur, Manipur dated 03.08.2022 inclusive of the order dated

20.10.2022 by urging the various grounds.

[2] Brief facts of this proceedings are as under:

The plaintiff has initiated the suit against the defendants for

declaration of the suit scheduled property depicted therein. The plaintiff is

the eldest natural royal blood son of one late Kalaraj and the same has

been taken in the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The
2

plaintiff was appointed with well-wishing for the religious post as Kalaraj or

Chief of Ningthoukhong Radha Madhav and he requested and approach

the Secretary custom Uttra Sanglen Sana Konung. In response to the

request permission seeking succession coronation by the plaintiff as

aforesaid the royal custom Uttra Sanglen Konung Shri. Th. Ibungohal

Singh. Apart from that several grounds have been taken to initiate the suit

against the defendants for seeking declaratory relief in respect of the suit

schedule property.

[3] Heard Mr. A. Sachinkumar for the petitioners and so also the

learned counsel for the respondent, namely S. Lokhendro.

[4] The grounds which have been taken in the plaint have been

taken into consideration. It reveals that the suit has been filed by the

plaintiff against the defendants for declaratory relief in respect of the suit

schedule property. Subsequent to the registration of the said suit against

the defendants and wherein the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.)

Bishnupur, Manipur had issued summon against the defendants and more

so summon had been effectively serviced but they did not engage the

service of the advocate initially and both the defendants No. 1 & 2 have

been placed ex-parte and subsequently, the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have

filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC seeking for setting

aside the ex -parte order passed against them for the reasons that despite

of effective service of process against them, they did not appear or secure
3

the service of an advocate nor appear in person before the Court. But the

aforesaid Presiding Officer, Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Bishnupur, proceeded ex-

parte against the defendants dated 03.08.2022 and so also 20.10.2022 but

filing an application under Order 9 Rule 7 and that application was

registered as in Jud. Misc. Case No. 303 of 2022 arising out of the

proceeding in Original Suit No. 12 of 2022 vide Annexure A/4 but the said

application came to be dismissed and dismissal order has been challenged

under this Civil Revision Petition by urging various grounds for seeking to

set aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2022 and so also the order

dated 20th October 2022. These are all the contentions which have been

taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this matter and also in

further submitting that if this proceeding is not been allowed for the

petitioner, there would be some miscarriage of justice and there is no filing

of any written statement or any document on their side for proper

adjudication of the proceeding in between the plaintiff and the defendants.

[5] On contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent in this

matter has taken me through the impugned order which has been rendered

by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Bishnupur, and wherein the

effectively service of process against the defendants and despite of it they

have not initially engaged the service of an advocate but for the absence

of the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 that the ex-parte order dated 03.08.2022 and

so also dated 20.10.2022 have been rendered but in this Civil Revision
4

Petition having been seeking for intervention but there is no sufficient

cause has been stated in the petition for setting aside the aforesaid

impugned orders.

[6] Having gone through the entire materials available on record

inclusive of the plaint averments it reveals that the plaintiff has filed suit

against the defendants for declaratory relief in respect of the concept of

religious post and if there is no opportunity has been given to the

defendants in a suit which has been filed by the plaintiff against the

defendants then, there would be a possibility of miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, as of this stage, it does not require dwelling in detail about the

contentions taken and various grounds taken in the suit initiated by the

plaintiff against the defendants but the sufficient cause in case made out

by the petitioners/defendants in this matter and also made out for non-

appearance on the date fixed for hearing and the concerned court having

a discretion to placing an ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them

but they cannot be penalized for merely because of not having been

engaging the service of advocate or even appear before the Court of Law

as a party in person to agitate the issues in between the plaintiff and the

defendants and therefore, it is deemed appropriate to state that and also

keeping in view the doctrine of “Audi alteram partem” that the grounds

which have stated in this Civil Revision Petition as initiated by the
5

petitioners against the respondent are found to be acceptable and also

justifiable.

[7] In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings in this matter, I

am inclined to pass the order as under:

This Civil Revision Petition which has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India is hereby allowed and

consequently setting aside the ex-parte order which has been

passed by the Presiding Officer of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)

Bishnupur, Manipur in O.S. No. 12 of 2022 dated 03.08.2022

and so also dated 20.10.2022.

[8] However, the suit is of the year 2022 and there is no progress

made even on the part of the defendants and therefore, it is deemed

appropriate that the petitioner/defendants No. 1 & 2 shall be present before

the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Bishnupur, Manipur in O.S. No. 12 of

2022 on 01.08.2025 without waiting any notice/process from the aforesaid

Court. If the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 being arrayed as petitioners in this matter

and if they have not been present before the Court on the day on 1 st

August, 2025 and the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Bishnupur be directed to

exercise the discretionary power for imposing of costs upon the

defendants/petitioners herein.

[9] However, the suit is of the year 2022 and even on the part of

the plaintiff there was no recording of an evidence and more so it requires
6

for filing written statement and therefore it is deemed appropriate that

defendants in the aforesaid suit shall file a written statement within a period

of 10 days from the date of appearing before the aforesaid Court that i.e.

01.08.2025. Accordingly, this proceeding is disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

John Kom