Nunglepam Ibomcha Singh vs Ngangbam Tomcha Singh And Nunglepam ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 101 Mani

Manipur High Court

Nunglepam Ibomcha Singh vs Ngangbam Tomcha Singh And Nunglepam ... on 30 January, 2026

                                                         1
Abujam
Surjit Singh                                                                       Sl. No. 1-2

Digitally signed by                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Abujam Surjit Singh                             AT IMPHAL
Date: 2026.02.03
                                              CRP No.1 of 2026
22:16:50 -08'00'
                                                   With
                                            MC(CRP) No.1 of 2026

                       Nunglepam Ibomcha Singh
                                                                                 Petitioner/s
                                                   Vs.

                       Ngangbam Tomcha Singh and Nunglepam Chaoba Singh
                                                                               Respondent/s

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

(ORDER) 30.01.2026.

Captioned 'Civil Revision Petition'( 'CRP' for the sake of brevity)

has been filed in this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India

and assailing an order dated 24.11.2025 made in Civil Execution Case

No.3 of 2024 on the file of Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Imphal

East. To be noted this '24.11.2025 order' shall be referred to as

'impugned order' and 'Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Imphal East'

which made this order shall be referred to as 'Executing Court' (both for

the sake of convenience and clarity).

2. Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel for revision petitioner is before this

Court. To be noted captioned CRP is in the admission Board.

3. This Court heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner in the

admission Board.

4. Short facts are that the lone revision petitioner before this Court

suffered a decree in O.S. No.19 of 1992/14/1194/6/2006 on the file of the

'Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Imphal West'(hereinafter 'Court of first

instance' for the sake of convenience and clarity); that the revision

petitioner assailed this decree made by the Court of first instance by way

of regular civil appeal (obviously Under Section 96 of 'the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908' which shall be referred to as 'CPC') vide 'Civil Appeal

No. 10 of 2012/45 of 2013' ('said civil appeal' for sake of convenience);

that the said civil appeal is on the file of District Judge, Manipur East that

the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal with costs, made a decree

to the effect that easementary right of way over the suit land qua plaintiff

in the original suit is confirmed and that the construction put up in the suit

pathway shall be demolished or that the appellant shall be evicted. To be

noted the lone revision petitioner before this Court is appellant No.2

before first appellate Court; that thereafter the plaintiff decree holder filed

Civil Execution Case in the Executing Court for executing this decree; that

the Executing Court put the revision petitioner before this Court (To be

noted that the revision petitioner is one of the judgment debtor in the

Executing Court) in notice; that the judgment debtor did not appear before

the Executing Court inspite of notice being served; that the Executing

Court made the impugned order inter-alia directing issue of the warrant

under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC; that assailing the impugned order

revision petitioner is before this Court.

5. Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted

that on 24.11.2025 the revision petitioner had e-filed objections at 12.34

p.m. but the impugned order has been made by the Executing Court

without considering the objections. Elaborating on this, learned counsel

submitted that the Court of first instance is Civil Judge Junior Division

Imphal West but the execution petition has been filed in the Court of Civil

Judge Junior Divsion Imphal East i.e., Executing Court without resorting

to section 39 of CPC and that this is the main objection raised.

6. Be that as it may, what is the significant is post impugned order i.e.,

post 24.11.2025, the revision petitioner has filed Judicial Misc.Case being

Judicial Misc.Case No. 309 of 2025 in Civil Execution Case No.3 of 2024

inter-alia with a prayer to consider the objections of the revision petitioner

said to have been e-filed on 24.11.2025 at 12.34 p.m. but no document

demonstrating filing of the Judicial Misc.Case has been placed before this

Court.

7. This Court carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the

case. This Court finds that petition in afore-referred Judicial Misc.Case is

dated 01.12.2025 and therefore it could not have been filed prior to

01.12.2025, if it has been filed at all. However, as the Judicial Misc.Case

number is mentioned, it is open to the revision petitioner to pursue the

same and it is equally open to the Executing Court to consider the same

on its own merits and in accordance with law, untrammeled by instant

order.

8. For the sake of specificity, it is made clear that considering the

Judicial Misc.Case on its own merits and in accordance with law includes

considering the point that execution has been sought in the Executing

Court (which is not the court of first instance) without resorting to section

39 of CPC.

9. Suffice to write that it is open to the Executing Court to consider the

Judicial Misc.Case No.309 of 2025 on its own merits and in accordance

with law.

10. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned CRP does not pass muster in the

admission Board and the same is disposed of as closed leaving it to the

Executing Court to decide the Judicial Misc.Case No.309 of 2025 (e-filed)

on its own merits and in accordance with law. Consequently captioned

M.C is also disposed of as closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

FR/NFR                                                  CHIEF JUSTICE


Ab. Surjit