[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Nongmaithem Maipak Devi vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India) on 10 February, 2026
LAIRENMAYUM Page 1 of 14
INDRAJEET SINGH
Digitally signed by
Item Nos. 20-22
LAIRENMAYUM INDRAJEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SINGH
Date: 2026.02.12 16:53:11 AT IMPHAL
+05'30'
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 7 of 2025
Nongmaithem Tolhal Singh, aged about 75 years, son of late N. Cheiteino
Singh of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal
West District, Manipur, died on 28.06.2018 by his LRs:-
1. Nongmaithem Maipak Devi, aged about 70 years, wife of late N. Tolhan
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Sairem Ongbi Nongmaithem Romita Devi, aged about 39 years, wife of S.
Anand Kumar and daughter of N. Tolhal Singh, resident of Chingmeirong
Maning Leikai, P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
3. Nongmaithem Rakesh Singh, aged about 37 years, son of late N. Tolhal
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
4. Nongmaithem Ritu Devi, aged about 32 years, daughter of late N. Tolhal
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Impal West District, Manipur.
5. Nongmaithem Ratan Singh, aged about 28 years, son of late N. Tolhal
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
Petitioner/s
Vrs.
Nongmaithem Manitomba Singh, aged about 75 years, son of late N. Cheiteino
Singh of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
Respondent/s
With
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 8 of 2025
1. Nongmaithem Maipak Devi, aged about 70 years, wife of late N. Tolhan
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Sairem Ongbi Nongmaithem Romita Devi, aged about 39 years, wife of S.
Anand Kumar and daughter of N. Tolhal Singh, resident of Chingmeirong
Maning Leikai, P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
3. Nongmaithem Rakesh Singh, aged about 37 years, son of late N. Tolhal
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
4. Nongmaithem Ritu Devi, aged about 32 years, daughter of late N. Tolhal
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Impal West District, Manipur.
Page 2 of 14
5. Nongmaithem Ratan Singh, aged about 28 years, son of late N. Tolhal
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
Petitioner/s
Vrs.
Nongmaithem Manitomba Singh, aged about 75 years, son of late N. Cheiteino
Singh of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
Respondent/s
With
MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227)) No. 10 of 2025
Ref: CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 7 of 2025
Nongmaithem Tolhal Singh, aged about 75 years, son of late N. Cheiteino
Singh of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal
West District, Manipur, died on 28.06.2018 by his LRs:-
1. Nongmaithem Maipak Devi, aged about 70 years, wife of late N. Tolhan
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Sairem Ongbi Nongmaithem Romita Devi, aged about 39 years, wife of S.
Anand Kumar and daughter of N. Tolhal Singh, resident of Chingmeirong
Maning Leikai, P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
3. Nongmaithem Rakesh Singh, aged about 37 years, son of late N. Tolhal
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
4. Nongmaithem Ritu Devi, aged about 32 years, daughter of late N. Tolhal
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Impal West District, Manipur.
5. Nongmaithem Ratan Singh, aged about 28 years, son of late N. Tolhal
Singh, resident of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
Petitioner/s
Vrs.
Nongmaithem Manitomba Singh, aged about 75 years, son of late N. Cheiteino
Singh of Singjamei Mathak Chongtham Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
For the petitioners/Applicants : Mr. Henba Thokchom, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. T. Rajendra, Sr. Advocate,
instructed by Mr. Md. Shakir Khan,
Advocate
Date of Judgment & Order : 10.02.2026
Page 3 of 14
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
[1] This common order will now dispose of the captioned 2(two) main
'Civil Revision Petitions' ('CRPs' in plural and 'CRP' in singular for the sake of brevity
and convenience) and the captioned Miscellaneous Case (MC) in one of the CRPs
viz., CRP (CRP.Art.227) No. 7 of 2025.
[2] Age old adage 'blood is thicker' is not without exception and the
case at hand comes across as one such exception. The reason is, litigation between
two blood brothers namely Nongmaithem Manitomba Singh and his elder brother
Nongmaithem Tolhal Singh which commenced more than one decade and two
years ago in 2014 (22.10.2014 to be precise) is now being continued by legal heirs
of Tolhal Singh owing to his demise on 28.06.2018.
[3] Factual matrix in a nutshell is that land admeasuring 0.0946 hectares
or thereabouts comprised in Dag No. 1182 in Village No. 48 Singjamei, Imphal
West, Manipur is the nucleus of the matter and this land shall be referred to as
'entire suit land' for convenience; that there is sub division of entire suit land, Dag
No. 1182/1278 is a Ingkhol ('suit Ingkhol' for the sake of convenience) and Dag
No. 1182/1285 is a shop plot ('suit shop plot' for the sake of convenience); that
on 22.10.2014, the lone respondent in the captioned 2(two) CRPs (Manitomba
Singh) filed a suit in O.S. No. 32 of 2014 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division
Imphal West-I, Lamphelpat qua entire suit land, suit ingkhol and suit shop plot
with prayers for eviction, injunction, demolition and other ancillary prayers against
his elder brother Tolhal Singh; that the suit summon in this suit was served on
Tolhal Singh on 04.11.2014 and citing this as cause of action, Tolhal Singh filed a
suit being O.S. No. 73 of 2017 on the file of Civil Judge Senior Division Imphal
West with a specific performance prayer qua suit Ingkhol and suit shop plot; that
'Manitomba Singh' will also be referred to as 'CRP respondent' and 'heirs of Tolhal
Singh (Wife, 2 sons and 2 daughters)' shall also be referred to as 'revision
petitioners' both for the sake of convenience and clarity; that 'O.S. No. 32 of 2014'
shall be referred to as 'I suit-eviction suit' and 'O.S. No. 73 of 2017' shall be
referred to 'II suit-specific Performance suit'; that 'Civil Judge Junior Division
Imphal West-I' shall be referred to as 'said Junior Division Trial Court' and 'Civil
Judge Senior Division Imphal West' shall be referred to as 'said Senior Division
Trial Court' both for the sake of convenience and clarity; that the II suit-specific
performance suit was filed by revision petitioners' predecessor in title vide a plaint
dated 09.10.2017; that in the I suit-eviction suit, pleadings were completed, issues
were framed, recording of evidence commenced, plaintiff side evidence concluded
on 29.05.2017 with plaintiff (CRP respondent) examining 3(three) witnesses and
defendant side witnesses (defendants are revision petitioners) having examined
5 witnesses so far i.e. DW1 to DW5 and the scribe of a Kutcha Sale Deed on which
the specific performance suit is predicated is to be examined as DW6 and last
witness on defendants' side; that the I suit in the said Junior Division Trial Court
is now next listed on 12.02.2026; that as regards the II suit-specific performance
suit, the plaintiffs (revision petitioners) did not let in evidence and plaintiffs' side
evidence was closed on 30.04.2024; that revision petitioners filed a misc. case in
Judl. Misc. Case No. 416 of 2024 with a prayer to recall the 30.04.2024 order for
reopening the plaintiff side evidence; that this Judl. Misc. No. 416 of 2024 was
dismissed by the said Senior Division Trial Court in and vide a order dated
09.10.2024 which is sought to be revised vide captioned CRP No. 7 of 2025 ('1st
impugned order' for the sake of convenience); that thereafter on 06.01.2024
revision petitioners filed a transfer petition by way of Judl. Misc. Case No. 02 of
2024 on the file of Court of 'District Judge, Imphal West' ('said District Court' for
the sake of convenience) and this transfer petition was filed under Section 24 of
'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908'('CPC' for the sake of brevity); that this transfer
petition was dismissed by said District Court on 19.10.2024; that assailing the
dismissal of the transfer petition vide 'order dated 19.10.2024'('2nd impugned
order' for the sake of convenience) captioned CRP No. 8 of 2025 has been filed;
that the 2 CRPs have been tagged and listed together along with the captioned
MC in CRP No. 7 of 2025; that both captioned CRPs along with captioned MC were
heard out in full today.
[4] Mr. Henba Thokchom, learned counsel for revision petitioners and
Mr. T. Rajendra, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of Md. Shakir Khan,
counsel on record for the respondent are before this Court.
[5] There is no disputation that suit land, suit Ingkhol and suit shop plot
are the same with regard to I suit-eviction suit and II suit-specific performance
suit.
[6] As regards the 1st impugned order, said Senior Division Trial Court
dismissed the recall petition primarily on the ground that it does not fall within the
parameters for recall namely an order being obtained by fraud, misled by a party
or if the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices the party. To be noted,
on 30.04.2024, the said Senior Division Trial Court held that issues were framed
on 06.12.2019 but for more than 4 years no witness has been produced by the
plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs' side is closed.
[7] As regards the 2nd impugned order, said District Court dismissed the
transfer petition on the ground that Section 10 of CPC can be resorted to and
Section 11 will contain the situation as decision in the I suit-eviction suit will in any
way have a direct impact on the II suit-specific performance suit in terms of the
principles of res judicata.
[8] In the hearing today, Mr. Henba Thokchom, learned counsel for
revision petitioners submitted that the suit land, suit Ingkhol and suit shop plot
are same in both suits and the two suits proceedings in two different Courts can
lead to possible conflicting verdicts and can cause complications and anomalies.
Therefore it is imperative that the two suits are tried together in one Court either
by way of joint trial or by way of simultaneous trial is learned counsel's say. As
regards the 1st impugned order, post 06.12.2019, COVID-19 pandemic, which
none could portend or presage, spread and this has been overlooked by said Senior
Division Trial Court is learned counsel further say. Learned counsel also pointed
out that Hon'ble Supreme Court in and vide order dated 10.01.2022 in In Re:
cognizance for extension of limitation in suo motu Writ Petition(C) No. 3
of 2020 excluded the period (limitation) from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 across
the board owing to COVID-19 pandemic. Learned counsel also submitted that after
28.02.2022, unfortunate violence broke out in Manipur in early 2023 this led to
further delay and this has also not been taken note of by said Senior Division Trial
Court. In this view of the matter, learned counsel submitted that the revision
petitioners not letting in evidence in the II suit-specific performance suit is neither
wilful nor wanton but only owing to unforeseen circumstances which were beyond
the control of anyone.
[9] In support of his contention, learned counsel pressed into service
Chitivalasa Jute Mills Case reported in (2004) 3 SCC 85. Facts in Chitivalasa
Jute Mills are that there was a commercial dispute between Willard India and
Jaypee Rewa. To be noted, Chitivalasa Jute Mills is a Division of Willard
India. While Willard India filed a suit in 1997 claiming a sum of a little over 48
Lakhs towards Jute sold i.e. goods supplied/sold and delivered, Jaypee Rewa in
1988 filed a subsequent suit against Willard India praying for a decree for a little
over 45 lakhs inter alia claiming that the jute supplied were defective and not of
ISI standard. The question was whether these two suits should be tried together.
The ratio is, when issues arising for decision would be substantially common,
almost the same set of oral, documentary evidence would be needed to be
adduced for the purpose of determining the issues of facts and law arising for
decision in the suits before two different courts, the same will lead to duplication
and two judgments by two different courts leading to the possibility of inconsistent
findings and conflicting decrees cannot be ruled out and therefore two such suits
should not be tried by two different courts. Learned counsel also pressed into
service K.K. Velusamy case reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275. On facts, K.K.
Velusamy was also a specific performance suit and the question there was
whether Section 151 of CPC can be resorted to for recalling a witness on the teeth
of Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC which is a specific provision in this regard. The ratio
is, though Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only
when there is no provision in CPC governing the matter, when bonafides of the
applicant cannot be doubted and when exercise is to meet the ends of justice the
same can be entertained. In the case on hand, as regards the 30.04.2024 order
of the 'said Sr. Div. Trial Court' (to be noted 'Sr.' is abbreviation for 'Senior' and
'Div.' is abbreviation for 'Division'), recall was sought on the ground that it is an
erroneous order which causes prejudice to both parties which falls within one of
the recall parameters adverted to supra. It was also pointed out that as regards
recalling a witness, though Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is available, there is no specific
provision in CPC for reopening plaintiffs' side and prayer in any event was not to
recall a witness and it was to recall a judicial order. As regards filing the transfer
petition only on 06.01.2024, learned counsel for revision petitioners submitted that
the revision petitioners were waiting for issues to be framed in the II suit-specific
performance suit so that it can be demonstrated in a section 24 legal drill that the
issues in the I suit -eviction suit and II suit-special performance are almost similar
and there is a huge overlap. After 2019, as already alluded to supra, COVID-19
pandemic broke out (which none could portend) followed by unfortunate violence
in Manipur.
[10] In response to the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Rajendra, learned senior
counsel predicated his submission on the primary plank that the I suit-eviction suit
is at a very advanced stage as plaintiff's side evidence has been completed on
29.05.2017 itself, the plaintiff (respondent in CRPs) having examined 3 witnesses
and the defendants (revision petitioners) also having examined as many as 5
witnesses (DW1 to DW5) and only 1 witness remains to be examined namely DW6.
To be noted, this Court is informed that the Scribe of what according to revision
petitioners is a Kutcha Sale Deed dated 08.12.2000 on which the II suit-specific
performance suit is predicated. It was submitted that as regards the II suit-specific
performance suit, even evidence has not been let in by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs'
plea for recalling an order closing their side has been negatived and therefore
transferring I suit-eviction suit now would only cause delay of the conclusion of
the I suit-eviction suit. It was submitted that the respondent is a 78 years old
bachelor and the transfer petition has been filed only with the intention of delaying
the I suit- eviction suit which is at an advanced stage.
[11] By way of reply, Mr. Henba Thokchom, learned counsel submitted
that if transfer plea is acceded to, evidence already recorded thus far in I suit-
eviction suit will suffice and examination of DW6 who is scribe of the 08.12.2000
kutcha sale deed on which the specific performance suit is predicated remains. To
be noted, as regards the defendant in the II suit-specific performance suit i.e.,
respondent in the CRPs, defendant's side evidence has commenced, DW1 has been
examined and DW2 is scheduled to be examined in the next date. This submission
of learned counsel for revision petitioners that the deposition recorded in the I
suit-eviction suit and the exhibits marked in the I suit-eviction suit will suffice and
can be treated as evidence on the side of the plaintiff in the II suit-specific
performance suit (subject only to examination of DW6 scribe) is recorded and it is
recorded as an undertaking given to this Court.
[12] It is deemed appropriate to write that learned senior counsel pressed
into service Gopinath Deb case reported in AIR 1999 SC 2089 = (1999) 4
SCC 396 for the proposition and Satyam Fibres case reported in AIR 1996 SC
2592 = (1996) 5 SCC 550 (Indian Bank vs. M/S Satyam Fibres (India)
Pvt. Ltd) for the proposition that Section 151 CPC ought not to have been resorted
to for recalling. As regards Gopinath Deb case, it was a case of settlement by a
Collector in favour of a Deity by exercise of powers under Section 151 of CPC . As
regards Satyam Fibres case, on facts it pertains to invocation of bank guarantee
qua a commercial contract.
[13] This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and the
dispositive reasoning of this Court is as follows:
i) The suit land, suit ingkhol and suit shop plot are the same in
the I suit-eviction suit and II suit-specific performance suit.
The cap qua pecuniary jurisdiction of Jr. Div. Trial Court (to
be noted, 'Jr.' is an abbreviation for 'Junior' and 'Div.' as
already alluded to elsewhere supra in this order is an
abbreviation for 'Division') is 1 Lakh and as regards Sr. Div.
Trial Court pecuniary jurisdiction is unlimited. There is no
disputation on this obtaining position. Therefore, the I suit-
eviction suit was rightly filed in the Jr. Div. Trial Court in the
light of Section 15 of CPC which prescribes that every suit
should be instituted in a Court of the lowest grade competent
to try the same. The same will apply to the II suit-specific
performance suit as the value of the suit is well above Rupees
1 lakh. As regards the territorial jurisdiction also there is no
disputation.
ii) This Court finds that as regards the 1st impugned order, there
is no impediment in resorting to Section 151 of CPC as there
is no specific provision in CPC and as regards the recall order
prayer, it is clearly a case of an erroneous order which causes
prejudice to both sides as the 30.04.2024 order has not taken
into account the COVID 19 pandemic, exclusion of the period
from 15.03.2022 to 28.02.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the subsequent unfortunate violence that unfurled in
Manipur. Therefore, the 1st impugned order clearly deserves
to be interfered with and the sequitur is, same is set-aside.
iii) As regards the 2nd impugned order, the reasoning of the said
District Court that Section 10 CPC should have been resorted
to i.e., stay of subsequent suit on the same issue and that
Section 11 (res judicata) would contain the situation is
unacceptable as trial is underway in both suits at an advanced
stage. Other reasons are, Section 10 would only stay the
subsequent suit and verdict in I suit-eviction suit will not
contain any finding regarding determinants of a specific
performance plea, this being the sheet anchor of revision
petitioners' II suit-specific performance. For this suit same
reason Section 11 (res judicata) will also be of no avail. In any
event, dismissing II Suit-specific performance suit on the basis
of verdict in I suit-eviction suit will result in miscarriage of
justice as I suit-eviction suit will not contain any findings on
specific performance determinants.
iv) It is also to be noted that revision petitioners (defendants in
I suit-eviction suit and plaintiffs in II suit-specific performance
suit) have made a categorical statement in this court that the
deposition and exhibits in the I suit-eviction suit thus far
(subject only to examination of DW6) can be treated as
deposition and exhibits in the II suit-specific performance suit
also and the same has been recorded as an undertaking given
to this Court. This means that both the suits can be taken up
for arguments and concluded quickly if the I suit-eviction suit
is transferred to the Court of Senior Division Trial Court to be
tried jointly with II suit-specific performance suit. This
completely neutralizes and takes the wind out of the sails qua
the CRPs respondent's argument that the transfer petition has
been filed only to delay the I suit-eviction suit. On the contrary
one common verdict covering all issues between the parties
will only expedite quietus one way or the other. In this view
of the matter, the 2nd impugned order also deserves to be
interfered with and the sequitur is, the same is also set-aside.
v) As regards the case laws, this Court is of the considered view
that Chitivalasa Jute Mills case and K.K. Velusamy case
come to the aid of the revision petitioners for the propositions
that when there is overlap qua issues and possibility of
conflicting verdicts, suits have to be tried together and for the
proposition that Section 151 CPC can be resorted to for recall
respectively.
vi) As regards the Gopinath Deb case, this Court has no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that 30.04.2024 order
of the Senior Division Trial Court will certainly come within one
of the parameters for recall, namely, an erroneous order
which causes prejudice to the parties as it has overlooked
COVID 19 and subsequent violence in Manipur, as already
alluded to supra. As regards Satyam Fibres, it is completely
distinguishable on facts as that was a case of invocation of
bank guarantee qua a commercial contract. The facts of
instant case are closer to K.K. Velusamy which arises out of
a specific performance suit.
vii) This Court deems it appropriate to write that it has noticed
that there is no disputation or contestation about the position
that there is huge overlap of issues, parties are same, every
issues are common and entire suit land, suit Ingkhol and suit
shop plot are the same in I suit-eviction suit and II suit-specific
performance suit.
[14] In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus
far, the following common order is made:
i) 1st impugned order being order dated 09.10.2024 made in Judl.
Misc. Case No. 416 of 2024 in Original Suit No. 73 of 2017 on
the file of Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Imphal West,
Manipur is set aside;
ii) 2nd impugned order being order dated 19.10.2024 made in Judl.
Misc. Case No. 02 of 2024 {Ref: Original Suit No. 32 of 2014 on
the file of Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West,
Manipur} on the file of the Court of District Judge, Imphal West
is set aside;
iii) The I suit-eviction suit being O.S. No. 32 of 2014 on the file of
the Civil Judge Junior Division Imphal West-I will now stand
transferred to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Imphal
West for being tried jointly with O.S. No. 73 of 2017 albeit
subject to the condition that deposition already recorded and
documents already exhibited in the I suit, i.e., O.S. No. 32 of
2014 shall be treated as deposition and exhibits on the side of
the plaintiffs subject only to examination of the Scribe of the
purpoted Kutcha Sale deed dated 08.12.2000 and marking of
exhibits through him. As regards the defendant in the II suit-
specific performance suit (respondent before this Court), the
defendant side evidence can continue after examination of the
Scribe and necessary orders for facilitating this course of trial
shall be made by the transferee Trial Court on the basis of this
Judicial Order;
iv) For the sake of specificity, it is clarified that post transfer, the
scribe who was scheduled to be examined as DW6 in the I suit-
eviction suit shall now be examined as revision petitioners' side
witness, and his/her deposition and documents (if any) marked
through him/her shall be appreciated and looked into in
addition to the evidence already let in and the documents
already marked vide DW1 to DW5 in the I suit-eviction suit;
v) The Senior Division Trial Court i.e., Civil Judge Senior Division
Imphal West, shall, subject to pendency of cases, make every
effort to dispose of both the suits as expeditiously as the official
business of Court would permit.
[15] Captioned 2(two) CRPs are allowed albeit with observations and
recording of stated position of the revision petitioners regarding deposition and
exhibits as recorded supra. Consequently, captioned MC is disposed of as closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
FR/NFR
