Manipur High Court
Shri Khundrakpam Shanta Singh vs Smt. Sinam Shantibala Devi on 17 October, 2022
Digitally
signed by
LAIRENM LAIRENMAYU Item No. 47
AYUM M INDRAJEET
SINGH
INDRAJE Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
ET SINGH 2022.10.18
10:13:05
AT IMPHAL
+05'30'
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 38 of 2018
Shri Khundrakpam Shanta Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o (L) Kh. Mani Singh
of Thangmeiband Maisnam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District-Imphal West,
Manipur, Pin No. 795001.
....Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Smt. Sinam Shantibala Devi, aged about 65 years, W/o S. Manglem Singh
of Thangmeiband Maisnam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District-Imphal
West, Manipur, Pin. No. 795001.
2. Shri Khundrakpam Boycha Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o (L) Kh.
Khomdom Singh of Thangmeiband Maisnam Leikai, District-Imphal West,
Manipur, Pin No. 795001.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
17.10.2022
This revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, arises out
the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Imphal West, in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No. 331 of 2017
{Ref:- (i) Execution Case No. 24 of 2016 (ii) Original Suit No. 81 of 2015}.
The applicant in the said miscellaneous case is the petitioner herein. He filed
the miscellaneous case seeking condonation of the delay of 319 days in filing
a review petition in relation to the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016
passed in O.S. No. 81 of 2015. By its order dated 07.05.2018, the Trial Court
refused to condone the delay and dismissed the miscellaneous case.
Aggrieved thereby, he is before this Court.
Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner; and
Ms. T. Geetarani, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. There is no
representation for Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
Original Suit No. 81 of 2015 was filed by respondent No. 1 herein for
declaration of title and consequential reliefs in relation to the homestead land
measuring an area of .0105 hectares under Patta No. 90 of 2017(old)
350/4376(new), covered by C.S. Dag No. 3263/3445, Village No. 90,
Thangmeiband, Imphal West Sub Division, Manipur. The suit was decreed by
the judgment dated 12.08.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein,
being defendant No.2 in the suit, filed an appeal before the learned District
Judge, Imphal West. However, as there was a delay of 255 days in his doing
so, he filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2017 seeking condonation thereof. By
order dated 15.06.2017, the learned District Judge, Imphal West, found no
grounds to condone the delay and dismissed the miscellaneous case.
It is only thereafter that the petitioner herein filed a review petition
before the Trial Court with delay. Perusal of the condone delay petition filed
by him in Judl. Misc. Case No. 331 of 2017 reflects that, after the dismissal
of the condone delay petition by the Appellate Court, the petitioner
approached the revenue authorities in connection with Mutation Case No.
550/AS & SO/Imphal West-II. This Mutation Case was apparently disposed of
by order dated 26.12.2012. He thereafter secured a copy of the letter dated
14.07.2017 addressed by the Circle Mondol, Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal
West (Central), to the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central). It is on
the strength of this letter that he sought review of the judgment and decree
dated 12.08.2016 passed in the suit. However, the Trial Court noted the fact
that the petitioner had proved unsuccessful in his endeavor to move the
Appellate Court and then chose to return to the Trial Court by way of a review
petition. As regards the delay aspect, the Trial Court noted that rectification
of the revenue records was relatable to Mutation Case No. 550/AS &
SO/Imphal West-II dated 26.12.2012 and there was no explanation
forthcoming as to why the documents pertaining to this case could not be
filed in a suit of 2015. The Trial Court further noted that even if these
documents came to the notice of the petitioner only thereafter, the delay and
inaction on his part in relation to these public documents could not be
condoned. As such, the Trial Court held that sufficient cause was not made
out to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the miscellaneous case.
Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, fairly concedes that a copy of
the order dated 26.12.2012 passed in Mutation Case No. 550/AS & SO/Imphal
West-II has not been made part of the record in this case. As that seems to
be the very basis for seeking review of the judgment and decree in the suit,
this added carelessness and negligence on the part of the petitioner must
also weigh against him. In the absence of that order, it is not open to him to
rely upon a consequential letter of the revenue authorities and claim that the
judgment requires a second look. All the more so, when he approached the
Appellate Court with delay; suffered an adverse order and then chose to
return to the Trial Court, again with delay.
That apart, Ms. T. Geetarani, learned counsel, would inform this
Court that the petitioner herein independently filed O.S. No. 58 of 2019 before
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West- I at Lamphelpat,
against respondent No. 1 and others, seeking declaration of title and
consequential reliefs in relation to the very same land.
Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, states that he has no knowledge
of this new litigation. This fact further adds to the lack of bonafides on the
part of the petitioner.
Viewed thus, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the
well-reasoned and cogent order passed by the Trial Court.
The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
