Indira Sarangthem vs Athokpam Herojit Singh; & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 573 Mani

Manipur High Court

Indira Sarangthem vs Athokpam Herojit Singh; & Ors on 9 September, 2025

             Digitally signed
KABORAMBA by KABORAMBAM
M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
          Date: 2025.09.10
SINGH     15:51:36 +05'30'

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                 AT IMPHAL
                                          Review. Pet. No. 28 of 2025

                       Indira Sarangthem
                                                                                   Petitioner
                                                Vs.
                       Athokpam Herojit Singh; & Ors.
                                                                               Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA (ORDER) (K. SOMASHEKAR, C.J.)

09.09.2025

[1] This review petition has been filed by the

petitioner/respondent No. 3 in W.P. (C) No. 76 of 2025, under Chapter IX of

the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019, by urging various grounds for

reviewing the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by this Court in the aforesaid

writ petition.

[2] Keeping in view the issues in between the petitioner and the

respondents are concerned, it is deemed appropriate that the learned senior

counsel, Mr. S. Biswajit who is present before the Court physically, be

directed to accept process on behalf of respondent No. 1 and learned senior

counsel Mr. BP Sahu, who is appearing through video conferencing, be

directed to accept process on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

[3] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Devananda

has taken us through the order rendered by this Bench dated 26.08.2025,

and wherein in Para 9, this Court made an observation that the order dated

Page | 1 14.08.2025 issued by the Central Agricultural University, Manipur (CAU)

giving charge of Dean, College of Agriculture, Iroisemba, Imphal to Dr. N.

Brajendra Singh, Professor (GBP), COA, Iroisemba, Imphal shall continue till

31.10.2025 or till the appointment of the regular Dean if appointed earlier.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended

that the observation made in para 9 is contrary to the observation made in

para 10, which reveals as that based upon the submission of the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner and inclusive of the learned senior counsel

for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and wherein the senior counsel, Mr. BP Sahu for

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has produced an office order dated 14.08.2025 and

the same has been taken on record and even though the said order has been

taken on record, it cannot come in a way of para 14 of the CAT, Gauhati

order dated 24.01.2025.

[4] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.

Devananda further took us to the grounds urged in this review petition,

wherein in para 3A, the petitioner took a ground that on reviewing the video

footage of the day i.e., 26.08.2025, Division Bench item No. 36 to 42, it can

be very clearly seen and heard that the above reproduced sentence was

never dictated/pronounced by this Court when the order dated 26.08.2025

was passed in the open Court but was inserted later on. Whereas in para

3B, taken a ground that para No. 9 of the order dated 26.08.2025 particularly

the newly inserted sentence and the para No. 10 of the same order are

contradictory to each other and makes the order dated 26.08.2025

Page | 2 nonsensical. The newly inserted sentence in Para No. 9 has allowed one

incumbent who was given the charge of Dean, College of Agriculture,

Iroisemba, Imphal vide an Order dated 14/8/2025 to continue till

31/10/2025 or till the appointment of the regular Dean if appointed earlier,

however, in the Para No.10 of the order dated 26/8/2025, it was specifically

stated that though the order dated 14/8/2025 was taken on record it cannot

come in the way of the Para No.14 of the CAT, Guwahati order dated

24/01/2025.

[5] Keeping in view the submission which is made by learned

senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Devananda in this matter are

concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer to Appenendix-34, High Court

of Manipur (Video Conferencing Rules), 2019 in Notification dated

08.02.2019, wherein in Rule 3.6(ii) it is indicated that no other recording

device is permitted except the one installed in the video conferencing room

and whereas in Rule 6.9, it reveals as that the audio-visual shall be recorded

at the Court point. An encrypted, master copy with hash value shall be

retained in the Court as part of the record. Another copy shall also be stored

at any other safe location for back up in the event of any emergency.

Transcript of the evidence recorded by the Court shall be given to the parties

as per applicable rules. A party may be allowed to view the master copy of

the audio video recording retained in the Court on application which shall be

decided by the Court consistent with furthering the interests of justice.

Page | 3 [6] However, if the petitioner, respondent/No. 3 wants to record

any dictation, she must be seeking permission from the Court of law, if not,

it amounts to violation of the High Court of Manipur (Video Conferencing

Rules), 2019, even the matter has been initiated before the CAT but she

was alleged to be recording the dictation in this matter on 26.08.2025 and

it is in the presence of the learned senior counsel Mr. Sapam Biswajit for

respondent No. 1 and Mr. BP Sahu for respondent Nos. 2 & 3, but without

seeking permission by the petitioner who has initiated this review petition

for seeking intervention of the order in para 9 and para 10 and whereby the

grounds has been taken for, there shall be miscarriage of justice but without

taking any permission from the Court of law, the petitioner herself has

voluntarily recorded the dictation in this matter, it will amount to violation of

the High Court of Manipur (Video Conferencing Rules), 2019 relating to

recording the court proceedings.

These are all the status in this matter and therefore it is deemed

appropriate to refer to Section 327 of Code of Criminal Code of Procedure

which indicates that the place in which any Criminal Court is held for the

purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed to be an

open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the

same can conveniently contain them, provided that the Presiding Judge or

the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or

trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular

person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building

used by the Court. The same is applicable to the conduct of the petitioner in

Page | 4 this matter, and whereby she has initiated this review petition by making

use of the provision of the CPC for seeking intervention of the para 9 & 10,

and wherein she urged the grounds that observation made in para 9 is

contrary to para No. 10 in the writ petition and also para No. 14 of the order

rendered by the CAT.

[7] However, keeping in view the issues in between the petitioner

and the respondents in this matters are concerned, it is deemed appropriate

to refer the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of India decided on

31.10.2023 in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. State Tax Officer

(1) and Ors. reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362.

Wherein in Para 9 of the aforesaid judgment, it is indicated that

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.

Wherein in para 11 in the same judgment, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India has taken into consideration of the views in a case

of Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. MANU/SC/1360/1997 :

(1997) 8 SCC 715, this Court made very pivotal observations:

9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 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

Page | 5 justifying the court to exercise its power of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 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."

Wherein it is observed in para 15 and 16 as thus:

"15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Ors. MANU/SC/0030/2021 :(2021) 3 SCC 1, held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

16. The gist of the aforesaid decision is that

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a

mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and

departure from that principle is justified only when

circumstances of a substantial and compelling character

make it necessary to do so.

(iii) 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 record justifying the court

to exercise its power of review.

(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1

Code of Civil Procedure, it is not permissible for an

erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."

Page | 6

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be

allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

(vi) Under the guise of review, the Petitioner cannot be

permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which

have already been addressed and decided.

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error

which, mere looking at the record should strike and it

should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning

on the points where there may conceivably be two

opinions.

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/

judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself

cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

[8] This decision is applicable to the present facts and

circumstances of the case whereby this review petition has been initiated by

the petitioner for seeking intervention in respect of para 9 and 10, whereby

it is specifically stated that during the course of the dictation a sentence was

not there, but the same has been inserted later on, but this grounds are

concerned, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the scope of 'improvisation'

the word 'improvisation' in a judgment and order refer only for rendering

complete justice to both the parties to the proceeding. Whereas even in

Court dictation and even heard arguments thereafter reserved for any

judgment or order, but the correctional process always remains with the

domain of the court of law and therefore correctional process, in case to be

taken, keeping in view the civil rules of practice that the emergent copy it

shall be issued within a period of 48 hours and even in ordinary application

in case filed, the copy of the order shall be issued within period of 15 days

and therefore there shall be some correctional process and that correctional

Page | 7 process is an important domain vested to the Court of law but in the instant

case wherein the petitioner who has video recorded during the court

proceeding and without seeking permission as per Appendix-34 High Court

of Manipur (Video Conferencing Rules), 2019.

[9] Therefore in this matter, it is deemed appropriate that learned

senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel

for respondent No. 1, Mr. S. Biswajit; and learned senior counsel for

respondent Nos. 2 & 3, Mr. BP Sahu be directed to clarify the position of law

and also the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for seeking intervention in para

9 & 10 even though dictation was given in the open Court in their presence

but improvisation of any order or judgment and also correctional process, it

is an important domain vested to the Court of law and there shall be

complete justice rendered to both the parties to the proceeding.

[10] However, in a correction of oral dictation or judgment before

signed, in the case of State of Haryana v. Aalamgir, (2025) 6 SCC 397, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 10 as thus.

"10. In Sangam Lal V. Rent Control and Eviction Officer,

while dealing with the rent control matter, the Court came to

the conclusion that until a judgment is signed and sealed after

delivering in court, it is not a judgment and it can be changed

or altered at any before it is signed and sealed.

This observation has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the aforesaid judgment and wherein the issues has been

addressed by the Supreme Court of India and therefore in this review

petition which has been filed making use of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for seeking

Page | 8 intervention in terms of the dictation in para 9 & 10 and also taken a ground

there is insertion of new sentence after dictation and new sentence has been

introduced. But this kind of ground urged based upon the video recording

of the Court proceeding without seeking permission from the Court of law,

it is in violation of the High Court of Manipur (Video Conferencing Rules),

2019, therefore, it is deemed appropriate that the video recording during

the course of the proceeding without seeking permission of the court of law

is nothing but affecting the administration of justice, as keeping in view the

provision of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore these

are all the provisions referred in this matter and it is based upon the forceful

submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.

Devananda and also it is recorded in the presence of learned senior counsel

for respondent No. 1, Mr. S. Biswajit and learned senior counsel for

respondent Nos. 2 & 3, Mr. BP Sahu.

[11] Therefore, the aforesaid counsel in this matter be directed to

clarify the stand relating to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and even

though the issue has been addressed in detail by the Supreme Court of India

whereby judgment has been rendered and accordingly made an observation.

[12] In a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in

this matter are concerned and also keeping in view the grounds which have

been urged in this matter, it is deemed appropriate that the Registrar

General, High Court of Manipur be directed to proceed as keeping in view

the Appendix-34 High Court of Manipur (Video Conferencing Rules), 2019 to

put sign boards inside and outside the Court Room, relating to recording the

Court proceeding without seeking permission and the same shall be

mentioned in the cause list to make aware the litigants and public including

their counsel.

Page | 9 Accordingly made an observation and directed to Registrar

General to do so.

Learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and so also

learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 be directed to file response,

if any, to this review petition and copy of the same shall be furnished to the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

Consequently, this matter would be listed on 09.10.2025 for

considering the maintainability of this review petition.

                     JUDGE                                 CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep




                                                                     Page | 10