Manipur High Court
Smt. Konsam Dhaballi Devi Represented ... vs Smt. Chongtham (O) Kunjarani Devi By 2 ... on 22 November, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
LAIREN Digitally
signed by
MAYUM LAIRENMAYU Item No. 27
M INDRAJEET
INDRAJ SINGH
Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
EET 2022.11.22 AT IMPHAL
SINGH 16:06:10
+05'30'
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 5 of 2018
Smt. Konsam Dhaballi Devi Represented by her 6 LRs
....Petitioners
- Versus -
Smt. Chongtham (O) Kunjarani Devi by 2 ors.
...Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR 22.11.2022 This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Imphal West, in Judl. Misc. Case No. 22 of 2017, refusing to condone the delay of 333 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2016 in O.S. No. 23 of 2012 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West-II.
During the pendency of this civil revision petition, the petitioner expired and her legal representatives were brought on record.
Having commenced arguments, Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel for the petitioners, sought an adjournment on 06.05.2022 to enable him to verify whether any steps were taken pursuant to the complaint dated 28.12.2017 made by the deceased petitioner to the Bar Council of Manipur against her former counsel. However, there was no representation for Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel, on 02.08.2022 and again on 27.09.2022. The case was accordingly directed to be listed under the caption 'Dismissal' on 07.11.2022. On that day, yet again, there was no representation for Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel, but as regular Court work was disturbed owing to the sudden demise of Mr. Ch. Dhananjoy Singh, learned senior counsel, one more opportunity was 2 given to the petitioner's counsel to appear and argue the matter. The case was directed to be listed under the same caption on 22.11.2022.
Today, the matter appears under the caption 'Dismissal', but there is no representation for Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A. Priyokumar, learned counsel, appears for the respondents.
Given the continued absence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court is constrained to draw the inference that the petitioners are no longer interested in pursuing this litigation.
CRP (CRP.Art.227) No. 5 of 2018 is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE Indrajeet