Manipur High Court
Tombisana High School vs State Of Manipur; & Ors on 5 November, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
KABORAMBA Digitally
KABORAMBAM
signed by
M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2025.11.05
SINGH 17:28:41 +05'30'
Sl. No. 27 & 28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
RFA No. 4 of 2017
Tombisana High School
Appellant
Vs.
State of Manipur; & Ors.
Respondents
Clubbed with
MC (RFA) No. 20 of 2017
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
05.11.2025
[1] Captioned main 'Regular First Appeal' ('RFA' for the sake of brevity)
is a regular first appeal under Section 96 of the 'Code of Civil Procedure, 1908'
('CPC' for the sake of brevity).
[2] There is a lone plaintiff and 5 defendants in the Suit in the Trial
Court. To be noted, the Suit is Original Suit No. 42 of 2014 on the file of the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 1, Manipur East. 'This Suit' and the 'Trial
Court' where it was pending shall be referred to as 'said Suit' and 'said Trial Court'
respectively, both for the sake of convenience and clarity.
[3] Plaint in said Suit was filed on 23.07.2014, and the same was recast
twice. Joint written statement of all five defendants is dated 13.11.2014.
[4] Thereafter, said Trial Court has framed seven issues on 07.05.2015
followed by two additional issues which were framed on 06.10.2015.
[5] In the interregnum, an order of temporary injunction dated
08.01.2015 appears to have been carried to this Court resulting in an order dated
15.07.2015 wherein this court appears to have opined that a prima facie view
about the locus of the plaintiff has to be first taken by the said Trial Court before
granting injunction and on this point, the matter has been remitted to the said
Trial Court.
[6] Thereafter, interestingly and intriguingly, the Trial Court has
adverted to 15.07.2015 order of this Court returned a finding regarding locus of
the plaintiff and non-suited the plaintiff in and by a 'judgment and decree dated
15.05.2017' ('impugned judgment and decree' for the sake of convenience and
clarity).
[7] Another intriguing factor is, the records of the said Trial Court are
before this Court and it is noticed that a rejection of plaint application being
Judicial Misc. Case No. 363 (A) of 2014 seeking rejection of plaint in Order VII,
Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC has been taken out by the defendants, the same was
last listed before said Trial Court on 11.12.2014 and 20.12.2014 has been fixed
as a date for hearing.
[8] The following points require clarity:
(i) what is the fate of the afore-referred rejection of plaint
application?
(ii) whether any issue regarding declaration as bad the 03.08.1978
order of the Education Department, Government of Manipur
taking over the plaintiff High School has been framed? To be
noted, this is prayer limb No. (ii) in the recast plaint, also to be
noted, in the seven issues and two additional issues dated
07.05.2015 and 06.10.2015 respectively, we do not find any
such issue.
(iii) Whether the Trial Court resorted to Order XIV Rule 2 Sub-Rule
(2)(b) of CPC (Preliminary issue) at all?
(iv) No issues have been set out in the impugned judgment and
decree much less, have issues been answered in conformity
with Order XIV Rule 1 of CPC ?
(v) From the records we find that no documents have been
exhibited (plaint documents/defendants' documents have not
been marked as exhibits) and no oral evidence appears to have
been let in as there is no deposition.
Clarification on the above mentioneed points is required.
[9] Reverting to the narrative, the sole plaintiff in the said Trial Court
which was non-suited, has filed the captioned main RFA and Ms. Ph. Sarvodaya
Lakshmi, learned counsel on record for the sole appellant is before this Court.
Five defendants in the said Trial Court are five respondents before this Court and
Ms. Thanyomi Keishing, learned State counsel is before us on behalf of
respondents.
[10] Faced with the above situation, both learned counsel request for a
short accommodation to brief their respective senior counsel (Mr. HS Paonam on
behalf of counsel for appellant and Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General
on behalf of counsel for respondents) so that they can appear before this Court
and assist this Court particularly on the above points. Considering the position
that the impugned judgment and decree is more than one decade and one year
(11 years) old and the captioned main RFA itself is of the year 2017, the next
listing shall be treated as peremptory.
[11] List on 11.11.2025.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
