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
KHOIROM Digitally
KHOIROM
signed by
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
Date: 2025.07.16
SINGH
DRA SINGH 00:22:08 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 22 of 2024
Chongtham Shantibala Devi
... Applicant
- Versus -
High Court of Manipur represented by its
Registrar General & 3 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 seeking for condonation of 265 days to file an appeal
in Appeal No. 2175 of 2024 to challenge the order on various grounds.
[3] Whereas, the MC(REVIEW PET.) No. 22 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. 2175 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 the 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 grounds, 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 Others4 , 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
