Laishram Swarnalata Devi vs Laishram (N) Memchoubi Devi & 2 Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 336 Mani

Manipur High Court

Laishram Swarnalata Devi vs Laishram (N) Memchoubi Devi & 2 Ors on 5 February, 2026

Author: A. Bimol Singh

Bench: A. Bimol Singh

              Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAN BIPINCHANDRA
          SINGH                                                                            Item No. 13
DRA SINGH Date: 2026.02.05
          05:09:37 +05'30'


                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                     AT IMPHAL
                                             MC(MAT. APP.) No. 18 of 2025

                         Laishram Swarnalata Devi
                                                                                        ... Applicant
                                                         - Versus -

                         Laishram (N) Memchoubi Devi & 2 Ors.
                                                                                     ... Respondents


                                                    B E F O R E
                                      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
                                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH

                                                      O R D E R

[M. Sundar, CJ] 05.02.2026

[1] Captioned miscellaneous case (MC) has been filed seeking

condonation of delay (CoD) qua 44 days delay in filing a matrimonial appeal.

[2] Mr. Ashokkumar, learned counsel for applicant submitted that

the main appeal is directed against a judgment & decree dated 09.04.2025

in Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 21 of 2023 on the file of Ld. Family

Court Judge, Manipur (impugned judgment). It was submitted that in and

vide impugned judgment, appellant's suit seeking declaration that she is an

unmarried daughter of deceased parents namely, Laishram Mangoljao

Singh and Laishram Bembem Devi was dismissed.

[3] As regards the delay, adverting to Paragraph No. 4 of the CoD

MC, learned counsel submitted that there was a lapse in communication

between appellant and her counsel in Trial Court owing to which the

Page 1|2 appellant came to know about the impugned judgment very late and this

resulted in delay that is sought to be condoned.

[4] This Court, on 10.10.2025 issued notice to the respondents in

the captioned MC, all three respondents have been duly served but they

have not chosen to either enter appearance through counsel or come before

this Court. To put it differently, the respondents have not come to this Court

and oppose the CoD prayer.

[5] Nonetheless, this Court examined the CoD plea in the light of

nature of matter, trajectory it has taken, facts and circumstances of the

case as well as the manner in which the appellant is circumstanced and on

the sum total of all these parameters, this Court is of the considered view

that the delay in filing afore-referred appeal deserves to be condoned as it

is a case of lapse in communication between appellant and her learned

counsel in Trial Court.

[6] Registry is directed to process the main appeal and assign a

number, if objections are removed and the appeal is otherwise in order.

[7] Apropos, sequitur is, delay is condoned. Captioned CoD MC is

ordered as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.

                            JUDGE                CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR

Bipin




                                                               Page 2|2