Manipur High Court
Moirangthem Binoy Singh Aged About 36 ... vs Khundongbam (N) Moirangthem (O) Minata ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cril. Revision Petition No. 1 of 2025
1. Moirangthem Binoy Singh aged about 36 years, S/o M. Ingocha
Singh, of Heirok Part-II Maning Leikai, P.O. Wangjing, P.O. Heirok,
Thoubal District, Manipur.
2. Moirangthem Sunolata Devi, aged about 56 years, W/o M. Ingocha
Singh, of Heirok Part-II Maning Leikai, P.O. Wangjing, P.O. Heirok,
Thoubal District, Manipur.
....Petitioners
-Versus-
Khundongbam (N) Moirangthem (O) Minata Chanu aged about 35 years,
W/o Moirangthem Binoy Singh of Heirok Part II, Bazar Mamang, P.O.
Wangjing, P.S. Heirok, Thoubal District, Manipur.
....Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioners : Mr. B. Prem Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. S . Jhaljit, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 18.07.2025
Date of Order : 16.09.2025
CRIL. REVISION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2025: M. BINOY & ANR V. KH. MINATA CHANU 1
ORDER [CAV]
[1] This criminal petition under Section 438 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is filed by the petitioners against the order
dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Session Judge, Thoubal Manipur
in Cril. Misc. Case No. 141 of 2024, thereby dismissing the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning a delay of 168 days in
filing appeal against the final judgment & order dated 08.12.2023 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thoubal in Cril. Complaint (DV)
Case No. 5 of 2020 awarding compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the
respondent.
Brief fact of the case-
[2] The petitioner No.1 and the respondent got married under the
Hindu customary rites on 02.03.2020 and since then they live as a
husband and wife. The respondent (wife) was serving as contractual
training graduate teacher of Jawahar Novodaya Vidyalaya Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya and at present she is a housewife and the
petitioner (husband) is serving as Lance Naik being No. 15723812Y of the
Technician of Telecommunication in the Indian Army C/O 56 APO and now
posted at the unit of 8th Mountain Division Signal Regiment,
Khumbathong, District Kargil, Union Territory Ladakh.
[3] The respondent (wife) filed a Cril. (Complaint) DV Case No. 5
of 2020 against the petitioners herein under Section 12 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 before learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Thoubal, Manipur. On 09.08.2022 case was
proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner due to non-appearance of the
petitioner. Vide judgment & order dated 08.12.2023, learned JMFC,
CRIL. REVISION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2025: M. BINOY & ANR V. KH. MINATA CHANU 2
Thoubal held that the respondents/petitioners herein committed domestic
violence against the complainant/respondent herein and directed to pay
a compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lakhs only) by the
petitioners severely or jointly to the complainant for causing damages,
mental torture, emotional distress, etc.
[4] The petitioners filed Cril. Misc. Case No.141 of 2024 before
the Sessions Judge Thoubal, Manipur under section 5 of the Limitation Act
for condoning the delay of 168 days in filing the Cril. Appeal against the
order dated 08.12.2023.
[5] The days of delay as show below :
08/12/2023 : Date of passing impugned judgment and order.
04/03/2024 : Date which application for obtaining the certified copy
of the impugned Order and Judgment.
08/03/2024 : Dated of receiving impugned Order and Judgment.
24/05/2024 : Date of filling the present appeal.
to
08/12/2023 : Number of days in delay in preferring the present
appeal is 168 days.
[6] Learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal rejected the application for
condonation of delay of 133 days vide order dated 21.10.2024 on the
ground that the petitioners miserably failed to show sufficient cause for
the delay so caused in filing the appeal. It was held that even though the
petitioner No.1 was posted outside, there was no explanation on the part
of the petitioner No.2 to prefer the appeal within the time. It was further
observed that the counsel suffering injury due to accident was not a good
cause for non-appearance before the trial court.
CRIL. REVISION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2025: M. BINOY & ANR V. KH. MINATA CHANU 3
[7] Hence, the petitioners have filed this present Cril. Revision
Petition against the impugned Order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Ld.
Session Court, Thoubal in Cril. Misc. Case No. 141 of 2024.
[8] Mr. B. Prem Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the order passed in Cril. Complaint (DV) No.5 of 2020 on
08.12.2023 and summon/Notice of the cril. Execution Case No. 2 of 2024
sent on 19.01.2024 and accordingly, the knowledge of the disposal of the
case was known to petitioners only in the last week of January, 2024 after
expiry of the period i.e. 30 days for filing the appeal.
[9] The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted
that the total number of days counting from the date of Order and
Judgment i.e., 08.12.2023 to 24.05.2024 is 168 days. After deducting/
excluding the number of 30 days and excluding other exempted number
of days for obtaining certified copy as per law, the number of days to be
condoned is (168-30-5) = 133 days.
[10] It is also submitted that the standing counsel for the
respondents in the Cril. Complaint (DV) Case No.5 of 2020 Mr. Oinam
Ramananda Singh, Advocate had suffered serious injuries due to road
traffic accident that led to a prolonged illness. His injuries later developed
into lung cancer and additional diseases and passed away on 11.12.2023.
To obtain the file and documents of the case from his relatives some
valuable number of days were lost which include the counting of
condonation of delay.
[11] It is also submitted that the petitioner No.1 is serving as Lance
Naik in the Indian Army and currently posted outside the state of Manipur.
CRIL. REVISION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2025: M. BINOY & ANR V. KH. MINATA CHANU 4
Thus, some days were lost in order to contact and obtain the signature of
the petitioner.
[12] It is further submitted that litigants should not be made to
suffer due to unavoidable circumstances on the part of the counsel as
held by catena of cases of Supreme Court.
[13] Mr. S. Jhaljit, learned counsel of the respondent has submitted
that the revisionists cannot show good and sufficient cause of filing
beyond the stipulated time. The domestic violence case was filed by the
present respondent against the petitioners and not against their
conducting counsel. Their conducting counsel Mr. Ramanda Advocate now
deceased is not in any manner, related to the petitioners/Revisionists. He
was merely a representative of the petitioners and nothing more. The
unfortunate events concerning the counsel cannot be considered a reason
of sufficient cause for condoning the delays in filing the Revision, when
the counsel died after almost four years after the accident. During this
time, the petitioners did not take up any step for engaging a new counsel
nor did they appear before the court to contest the case. Accordingly,
they were proceeded ex-parte and the final order was passed on the basis
of materials on record.
[14] The learned counsel of the respondent refers to the decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy
(Died) By L.Rs. and others vs Special Deputy Collector (LA)
reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 523 at para 25 that no court could
be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any
condition whatsoever. The relevant para is reproduced below :
CRIL. REVISION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2025: M. BINOY & ANR V. KH. MINATA CHANU 5
"25. This Court in the same breath in the same very decision vide
para 15 went on to observe as under:
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect
that where a case has been presented in the court beyond
limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what
was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and
enough reason which prevented him to approach the court
within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or
for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances
of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained
inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the
delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an
inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The
application is to be decided only within the parameters laid
down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In
case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to
approach the court on time condoning the delay without any
justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to
passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it
tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
[15] This Court has gone through the materials on record, the
submissions made at bar and the case law cited by the parties.
[16] It is true that as none appeared on behalf of the petitioners
after filing the objections before trial court, accordingly, the petitioners
who were respondents in the DV complaint case, were proceeded ex-parte
and vide order dated 08.12.2023 learned JMFC, Thoubal directed the
petitioners herein to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
respondent. The petitioners were held liable to pay severally and jointly.
[17] The reason for delay of 133 days in filing the appeal against
the order of learned JMFC was that the counsel for the petitioners met an
accident on 04.03.2020 and he died on 11.12.2023. Due to this reason,
the petitioners were not represented before the trial court, proceeded ex-
CRIL. REVISION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2025: M. BINOY & ANR V. KH. MINATA CHANU 6
parte and they came to know about the order when served with a copy
of the execution case in the last part of January 2024. Since the petitioner
No.1 was posted outside Manipur, it took some time in preparation for
filing the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been
specifically pleaded that the parties should not be made to suffer for the
lapses or inaction of the parties.
[18] On perusal of the documents, specially the medial records of
the deceased counsel for the petitioners, it is seen that their counsel met
accident on 04.03.2020 and he was discharged normally on 05.03.2020.
Thereafter, he expired on 11.12.2023 due to cancer. From the fact that
the counsel for the petitioners was discharged normally after one day of
hospitalisation for accident, it showed that the injury was not serious. The
expiry after almost four years was not related to the injury sustained in
the accident, but due to cancer. There was no valid explanation for this
long period of inaction. As rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, the
role of the petitioner No.2 who is in Manipur and has been directed to pay
the compensation severally and jointly, has not been explained at all. She
could have taken steps to contest the DV complaint and for filing the
appeal.
[19] In the recent case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. V. Ved
Prakash: 2024 INSC 891: 2024 SCCOnline SC 3380 @ Para 10,
Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the tendency of the party to blame
the counsel and held as follows:
"10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head
of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial
court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the
part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and
carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if
CRIL. REVISION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2025: M. BINOY & ANR V. KH. MINATA CHANU 7
we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless
or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long
and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of
his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the
judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance.
The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire
blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any
time and seek relief."
[20] In the fact of the present case, the petitioners have miserably
failed to explain the delay so caused in filing the present appeal. Their
counsel met accident on 04.03.2020 and was discharged on 05.03.2020,
thereby showing that the injury was not serious. There is no material on
record to show that the counsel could not practice due to the accident.
His death was due to cancer and that too after almost four years after the
accident. There is no explanation for not engaging a new counsel in spite
of having knowledge about the injury to the counsel. The role of petitioner
No.2 who is very much in Thoubal district in not engaging a new counsel,
has not been explained at all.
[21] In the circumstances, this Court does not find any valid reason
for interfering with the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal in
rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the
revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No cost.
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2025.09.16 JUDGE
MARING 14:05:05 +05'30'
FR/NFR
suchitra
CRIL. REVISION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2025: M. BINOY & ANR V. KH. MINATA CHANU 8
