Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 906 Mani
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2026
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.19 20:32:06 +05'30'
Sl. Nos. 15-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(PIL) No. 3 of 2026
Ahanthem Irabot Singh
........ Applicant
Vs.
State of Manipur and 9 others
........Respondents
With PIL No. 18 of 2025
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER) (Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
19.02.2026
[1] In the hearing today, Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior
advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. W. Jamon, learned counsel on record
for the lone PIL petitioner, Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, learned State Counsel led
by Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned senior advocate for R1 to R8 (official
respondents) and Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for R9 and R10
(private respondents) are before this Court.
[2] When the matter was taken up, it came to light from the
pleadings and submissions that both sides place strong/substantial reliance
on 'Original Suit No. 142 of 2014' on the file of the learned 'Civil Judge
Senior Division, Imphal East' ('said civil suit' and 'said civil court' both for
the sake of convenience and clarity). This Court is informed by both sides
that this Original Suit was earlier Original Suit No. 37 of 2014. It was
renumbered and assigned the number Original Suit No. 142 of 2014. This
Court is also informed that R9 and R10 in captioned PIL are plaintiffs in the
said civil suit and the lone PIL petitioner is first defendant in the suit. It also
comes to light that the Hon'ble Single Judge (Writ Court) has made a
common order dated 18.01.2022 being a common order in 3 (three) writ
petitions viz., WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C)
No. 124 of 2015. The PIL petitioner comes across as R6 in one of the writ
petitions (WP(C) No. 151 of 2008). In this common order, there is inter-alia
a direction to the parties to maintain status quo and await verdict from said
civil court in the said civil court. This Court is informed that the said civil suit
was dismissed for default on 27.03.2025 and subsequently, at the instance
of plaintiffs' (Judl. Misc. Case No. 128 of 2025) the said civil suit has been
resuscitated i.e., restored vide order dated 08.09.2025 and a scanned
reproduction of this order as can be ferreted out from the ECourts Services
portal is as follows :
[3] In the aforesaid scenario, neither the PIL petitioner nor R9
and R10 who are parties to the said in said civil court have annexed a copy
of the plaint and other pleadings (if any). This Court was willing to peruse
a copy of the plaint and other pleadings (if any) if copies can be furnished
across the Board in the hearing but learned counsel on both sides i.e., PIL
petitioner, learned counsel for R9 and R10 and the State Counsel (to be
noted, State is also party to said suit in said civil court) sought time to
produce plaint and other pleadings (if any).
[4] Afore-referred joint/common request acceded to.
[5] List on Tuesday.
[6] List on 24.02.2026.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!