Manipur High Court
Shri Khundrakpam Shanta Singh vs Smt. Sinam Shantibala Devi on 17 October, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
Digitally
signed by
LAIRENM LAIRENMAYU Item No. 47
AYUM M INDRAJEET
SINGH
INDRAJE Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
ET SINGH 2022.10.18
10:13:05
AT IMPHAL
+05'30'
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 38 of 2018
Shri Khundrakpam Shanta Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o (L) Kh. Mani Singh
of Thangmeiband Maisnam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District-Imphal West,
Manipur, Pin No. 795001.
....Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Smt. Sinam Shantibala Devi, aged about 65 years, W/o S. Manglem Singh
of Thangmeiband Maisnam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District-Imphal
West, Manipur, Pin. No. 795001.
2. Shri Khundrakpam Boycha Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o (L) Kh.
Khomdom Singh of Thangmeiband Maisnam Leikai, District-Imphal West,
Manipur, Pin No. 795001.
...Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR 17.10.2022 This revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, arises out the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal West, in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No. 331 of 2017 {Ref:- (i) Execution Case No. 24 of 2016 (ii) Original Suit No. 81 of 2015}. The applicant in the said miscellaneous case is the petitioner herein. He filed the miscellaneous case seeking condonation of the delay of 319 days in filing a review petition in relation to the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016 passed in O.S. No. 81 of 2015. By its order dated 07.05.2018, the Trial Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the miscellaneous case. Aggrieved thereby, he is before this Court.
Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. T. Geetarani, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. There is no representation for Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2 Original Suit No. 81 of 2015 was filed by respondent No. 1 herein for declaration of title and consequential reliefs in relation to the homestead land measuring an area of .0105 hectares under Patta No. 90 of 2017(old) 350/4376(new), covered by C.S. Dag No. 3263/3445, Village No. 90, Thangmeiband, Imphal West Sub Division, Manipur. The suit was decreed by the judgment dated 12.08.2016. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein, being defendant No.2 in the suit, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Imphal West. However, as there was a delay of 255 days in his doing so, he filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2017 seeking condonation thereof. By order dated 15.06.2017, the learned District Judge, Imphal West, found no grounds to condone the delay and dismissed the miscellaneous case.
It is only thereafter that the petitioner herein filed a review petition before the Trial Court with delay. Perusal of the condone delay petition filed by him in Judl. Misc. Case No. 331 of 2017 reflects that, after the dismissal of the condone delay petition by the Appellate Court, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities in connection with Mutation Case No. 550/AS & SO/Imphal West-II. This Mutation Case was apparently disposed of by order dated 26.12.2012. He thereafter secured a copy of the letter dated 14.07.2017 addressed by the Circle Mondol, Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), to the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central). It is on the strength of this letter that he sought review of the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2016 passed in the suit. However, the Trial Court noted the fact that the petitioner had proved unsuccessful in his endeavor to move the Appellate Court and then chose to return to the Trial Court by way of a review 3 petition. As regards the delay aspect, the Trial Court noted that rectification of the revenue records was relatable to Mutation Case No. 550/AS & SO/Imphal West-II dated 26.12.2012 and there was no explanation forthcoming as to why the documents pertaining to this case could not be filed in a suit of 2015. The Trial Court further noted that even if these documents came to the notice of the petitioner only thereafter, the delay and inaction on his part in relation to these public documents could not be condoned. As such, the Trial Court held that sufficient cause was not made out to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the miscellaneous case.
Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, fairly concedes that a copy of the order dated 26.12.2012 passed in Mutation Case No. 550/AS & SO/Imphal West-II has not been made part of the record in this case. As that seems to be the very basis for seeking review of the judgment and decree in the suit, this added carelessness and negligence on the part of the petitioner must also weigh against him. In the absence of that order, it is not open to him to rely upon a consequential letter of the revenue authorities and claim that the judgment requires a second look. All the more so, when he approached the Appellate Court with delay; suffered an adverse order and then chose to return to the Trial Court, again with delay.
That apart, Ms. T. Geetarani, learned counsel, would inform this Court that the petitioner herein independently filed O.S. No. 58 of 2019 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West- I at Lamphelpat, against respondent No. 1 and others, seeking declaration of title and consequential reliefs in relation to the very same land. 4
Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel, states that he has no knowledge of this new litigation. This fact further adds to the lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner.
Viewed thus, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned and cogent order passed by the Trial Court.
The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE Indrajeet