Manipur High Court
Smt. Changamayum (O) Angoubi Devi vs Shri Tinku & 5 Ors on 23 September, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 22-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(RSA) No. 22 of 2025
RSA No. 5 of 2018 with
Smt. Changamayum (O) Angoubi Devi
.....Applicant/s
- Versus -
Shri Tinku & 5 Ors.
.... Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Order
23.09.2025
[1] Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Bikash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and
Mr. Y. Daljeet, learned counsel for the respondent.
[2] By the present application, the appellant is praying for
modifying the substantial questions of law (a) and (e) framed by this
Court on 16.07.2018.
[3] Earlier vide order dated 16.07.2018 framed 5 (five)
substantial questions of law (a) to (e) and the same read as:
"(a) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court by setting aside the Judgment and
Decree of the Trial Court by holding on the
pleading of the Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 i.e.
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 which had rejected to file
their written statement by the Trial Court.
(b) Whether the Ld. Appellate Court below was
justified to set aside the judgment and decree of
the Ld. Trial Court without looking/considering the
point of determination frame by the Trial Court?
(c) Whether the Ld. Appellate Court below was
justified to set aside the Judgment and Decree of
the Ld. Trial Court without looking /considering a
single evidence produced by the Appellant/Plaintiff
both oral and documents?
(d) Whether the Ld. Appellate Court below was correct
the setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the
Ld. Trial Court by holding only on the consideration
of genealogical tree of the parties which is
produced only in the appeal memo of the
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and not in suit?
(e) Whether Ld. Appellate Court below failed to
execute jurisdiction conferred by law in her failure
to appreciate the evidence on record and come to
a different conclusion while passing the impugned
judgment and decree dated 21.03.2018"
[4] Mr. T. Rajendra, learned senior counsel for the appellant,
submits that substantial questions of law (a) requires reframing as the
question was not properly framed and in para 7 of the application, the
proposed substantial questions of law is printed as "Whether the First
Appellate was right in modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court relying on the pleadings of the Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 of which the
leave to file the same has been rejected." and in para 8 of the
application, the word "execute" in first line of substantial questions of
law (e) be modified as "exercise" to make more sense.
[5] It is submitted that by the proposed modification, the
nature of the substantial questions of law so framed vide order dated
16.07.2018 will not be altered.
[6] Mr. Y. Daljeet, learned counsel for the respondent, has
no objection in making modification in the substantial questions of law
as prayed for by the appellant.
[7] The substantial questions of law framed on 16.07.2018
read as followed after modification:
(a) Whether the First Appellate was right in modifying
the judgment and decree of the Trial Court relying
on the pleadings of the Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 of
which the leave to file the same has been
rejected?
(b) Whether the Ld. Appellate Court below was
justified to set aside the judgment and decree of
the Ld. Trial Court without looking/considering the
point of determination frame by the Trial Court?
(c) Whether the Ld. Appellate Court below was
justified to set aside the Judgment and Decree of
the Ld. Trial Court without looking /considering a
single evidence produced by the Appellant/Plaintiff
both oral and documents?
(d) Whether the Ld. Appellate Court below was correct
the setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the
Ld. Trial Court by holding only on the consideration
of genealogical tree of the parties which is
produced only in the appeal memo of the
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and not in suit?
(e) Whether Ld. Appellate Court below failed to
exercise jurisdiction conferred by law in her failure
to appreciate the evidence on record and come to
a different conclusion while passing the impugned
judgment and decree dated 21.03.2018
[8] Mr. T. Rajendra, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, submits that the following documents are not included in the
paper book but so much required for disposal of second appeal as First
Appellate Court considered these documents while setting aside
decree passed by the Trial Court.
(i) Order dated 19.03.2016 in JM No. 113 of 2016 of
Trial Court i.e. application under Order 8 Rule 1
rejected and no written statement of D/2 and D/3.
(ii) Exhibits of the plaintiff Ex. A/2 to A/7.
(iii) Deposition of PW 1 to PW 6.
(iv) Decree prepared by the Trial Court on the
instruction of DJ.
[9] Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
[10] Registry is directed to prepare additional paper book.
[11] List RSA No. 5 of 2018 on 14.10.2025.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
