Manipur High Court

Shri Langzoulian And 2 Ors vs Shri H. Timmy Gangte on 9 October, 2025

SHAMURAILA
                                                               1
TPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM
                                                                                      Sl. No.5-6(spl)
SUSHIL SHARMA
Date: 2025.10.15                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
15:40:59 -07'00'                                     AT IMPHAL

                                          CRP(C.R.P Art.227) No.49 of 2025
                                                        With
                                         MC(CRP(CRP Art.227) No.85 of 2025

                            Shri Langzoulian and 2 Ors.
                                                                                      Petitioner/s
                                                         Vs.

                            Shri H. Timmy Gangte
                                                                                    Respondent/s

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

(ORDER) 09.10.2025.

Captioned 'civil revision petition'('CRP' for the sake of

brevity) has been filed in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India assailing/seeking revision of an order dated 11.08.2025 made in

Judl. Misc.Case No.31 of 2025 in Original Suit (Injunction) No.6 of 2024

on the file of Civil Judge(Junior Division), Churachandpur.

2. This order dated 11.08.2025 shall be referred to as

'impugned order' and Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Churachandpur shall be

referred to as 'Trial Court' (both for sake of convenience and clarity).

3. Factual matrix in a nutshell is;

That, one H.Timmy Gangte filed a bare Injunction Suit arraying

three individuals as defendants;

That, the bare Injunction pertains to 18.07 acres of land in Revenue

Village No.105 Kekru Tampak, Churachandpur, Manipur that the 18.07

acres of land is in two parcels of 3.07 in 18 acres lying contiguous to one

another covered by C.S Dag. No.205/222 & 205/223 respectively;

That, 18.07 acres of land shall be referred to as 'suit land' for sake

of convenience and clarity;

That, the three defendants on being served suit summon entered

appearance and filed a common written statement dated 28.01.2025.

That, after filing written statement, the three defendants took out an

application under Order VII Rule 11 of 'Code of Civil Procedure, 1908'

('CPC' for the sake of brevity) seeking rejection of plaint on two grounds,

one ground is that it does not disclose a course of action and the second

ground is that it is barred by law; that the rejection of plaint application is

Judicial Misc. Case No.31 of 2025; that, Judicial Misc. Case No.31 of

2025 i.e., rejection of plaint application came to be dismissed(after full

contest) by the Trial Court in vide the impugned order; that the three

defendants stating that they are aggrieved by the impugned order have

filed the captioned revision petition in this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Thangchunghung, learned counsel for revision petitioner

submitted that the suit is inter-alia barred by the Section 123 of the

'Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)' ('TP Act' for sake the of

convenience and clarity), Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of

1908) ('Registration Act' for the sake of brevity) and also Rules 82 to 84 of

'Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reform Rule, 1961' ('said rules' for the

sake of convenience).

5. A careful perusal of the rejection of plaint application brings

to light that there is a reference only to Sections 38 and 39 of 'Specific

Relief Act, 1963' ( 'Specific Relief Act' for the sake of convenience). In

other words, in the rejection of the plaint application, defendants have

submitted that the suit is barred by Section 38 and 39 of Specific Relief

Act, there is no mention about the TP Act, Registration Act or said Rules.

Learned counsel very fairly submitted that the point that the suit is barred

by Section 123 of TP Act, Section 17 of Registration Act and Rule 82 to

85 of the said rules were raised only in the arguments.

6. It is to be noted that rejection of plaint application was taken

out under clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. To put

it differently, as already alluded to supra, the rejection of the plaint plea

was predicated on two grounds. One is that the suit does not disclose a

cause of action and another is that it is barred by Sections 38 and 39 of

the Specific Relief Act Besides this Section 123 of TP Act, Section 17 of

Registration Act and Rules 82 to 85 of the said rules was raised only in

the argument about which also there is allusion supra. This Court heard

the learned counsel for revision petitioner in the admission board, perused

the impugned order and the case file. This Court comes to the conclusion

that the captioned 'CRP' is bereft of merits and the same deserves to be

dismissed. The reasons are as follows:

A. The defendants have not pleaded in the rejection of plaint

application as regards Section 123 of T.P Act, Section 17 of

Registration Act and Rules 82-85 of said Rules. It was only

raised in the argument and this by itself is unacceptable but as

regards to Section 123 of T.P Act and Section 17 of

Registration Act, as the Trial Court has considered the same

vide the impugned order, the same is being looked into.

B. As regards, the suit being barred by law, there can be no two

opinions about obtaining legal position that it should so appear

from the statement in the plaint. This is clear from the

language in which Clause d of Rule 11 of the order VII of CPC is

couched whereas there is nothing demonstrated qua plaint i.e.,

nothing demonstrated in the legal drill at hand.

C. The Trial Court, in the impugned order has read the plaint as a

whole and come to the conclusion that the suit is not barred by

law on the reasoning that declaration of title need to be claimed

only when there is a cloud over the title and these have to be

proved in a manner known to law in Trial. This Court finds this to

be a sound approach and there is no reason to interfere in such

an approach taken by the Trial Court.

D. As regards, Sections 38 and 39 of Specific Relief Act, the Trial

Court is correct in observing that declaration prayer needs to be

sought only when there is a cloud on the title. It does not come

to light from the averment in the plaint that there is such a cloud

warranting a finding that the suit is barred for not making a

declaration of the title a prayer.

E. As regards, Section 123 of TP Act, 17 of Registration Act and

Rules 82-85 of said rules which pertains to the document on

which the plaintiff is predicating his claim and it has to be proved

in Trial in a manner known to law. Mutation is a consequence

and it is to be noted Rule 82-85 deals with Mutation.

F. As regards, the cause of action plea, there can be no disputation

that cause of action is a term /expression which has

not been defined in any statue much less in CPC cause of

action is a term/expression which has been explained in a

catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Om

Prakash Srivastava Vs Union of India and Another(2006) 6

SCC 207 can be usefully referred to Om Prakash Srivastava

case is one where on facts, Delhi High Court was approached

by stating that petitioner has come to India by way of extradition

from Singapore and he is being pursued in as many as 8 cases

in violation of extradition treaty. It is not necessary to dilate

more on facts, suffice to say that vide Para No.9 made it clear

that the bundle of facts which need to be proved by plaintiff to be

entitled to a decree would constitute cause of action. In the case

at hand, as the plaintiff has pleaded that there is interference

qua suit land it cannot be gainsaid that plaint does not disclose

a cause of action. In the impugned order, the Trial Court has

made clear and categorical reference to various averments in

the plaint, particularly averments in paragraph 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 to 10.

The pleadings in these paragraphs pertain to long possession,

recognition mutation of records Municipal tax payment,

Settlement registration entry and Specific Act for interference,

Specific act for interference, is pleaded in paragraphs 9-10 and

therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that there is no cause of action

disclose qua plaint.

G. The Trial Court has adverted to various case laws starting

from Anivandandam Vs. T.V. Satypal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, and

Popat & Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff

Assn.,(2005) 7 SCC 510 as regards the scope of a legal drill in a

Order VII Rule 11 plea. The Trial Court has also referred to

Mukund Bhawan Trust 2024 INSC 1025 as well as The Church

of Christ Charitable Trust case reported in 2012)8 SCC 706 for

the proposition that the plaint has to be tested on averment threat.

It is not necessary to dilate on this aspect of the matter as these

are very well settled principles.

H. Learned counsel made a specific reference to Anathurlar

Sudakar case. After referring to Anathular Sudakar case, the trial

Court has held that (Anthular Sudakar case is (2008) 4 SCC 594),

after referring to Anathular Sudakar case, the Trial Court has

concluded that it is an authority for the proposition that a suit for

bare injunction without seeking declaration is not maintainable title

is in dispute. Thereafter The Trial Court has come to the conclusion

that case is on hand is one where title is not in dispute, there is

no cloud over the title and therefore not making prayer for

declaration of title does not warrant rejection of plaint much less

rejection of the plaint in a legal drill under Order VII Rule 11(d) of

CPC.