Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Manipur High Court

Dr. S.M. Abdul Wakil Chishti vs Sheikh Abdul Hye Chishti on 8 July, 2022

Author: Sanjay Kumar

Bench: Sanjay Kumar

                                                                    Item No. 1

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                            AT IMPHAL

                          MC(CRP) No. 20 of 2016
                         (Ref: CRP No. 15 of 2016)

      Dr. S.M. Abdul Wakil Chishti, aged about 67 years S/o (L) Sheikh
      Fajlur Rahman Chishti, Retd. Professor, Manipur University,
      Canchipur and a resident of Rahamania Building, Thangal Bazar,
      P.O. Imphal, P.S. City in Imphal West District, Manipur;
                                                         ...Applicant
                                   - Versus -
      1. Sheikh Abdul Hye Chishti, aged about 70 years, son of
           (late) Sheikh Fajlur Rahman Chisti, resident of Khergao
           Ramania Road, P.O. Imphal and P.S. Porompat, Imphal,
           District; Imphal East.
                             ...Principal Respondents/Principal O.P.
      2.   Sheikh Abdul Khaliq Chishti, aged about 72 years.
      3.   Sheikh Abdul Quddus Chishti, aged about 70 years.
      4.   Sheikh A. Ayub Chishti, aged about 54 years.
            --All sons of late Sheikh Fajlur Rahman Chishti, now
            residing at Thangal Bazar, P.O. Imphal and P.S. City,
            Imphal, District; Imphal West.
      5.   Iqbal Chishti, aged about 62 years, daughter of (late)
           Sheikh Fajlur Rahman and wife of Md. Abdul Rahman,
           resident of Keikhu Awang Leikai, P.O. Imphal and P.S.
           Porompat, Imphal, District; Imphal East.
      6.   Daulat, aged about 60 years, daughter of (late) Sheikh
           Fajlur Rahman Chishti and wife of Md. Babu Mia, resident
           of Keikhu Awang Leikai, P.O. Imphal and P.S. Porompat,
           Imphal, District; Imphal East.
      7.   Ismet Nesha, aged about 57 years, daughter of (late)
           Sheikh Fajlur Rahman Chishti and wife of Md. Nasiruddin,
           resident of Khergao Sabal Leikai, P.O. Imphal and P.S.
           Porompat, Imphal, District; Imphal East.
      8.   Sauqa, aged about 51 years, daughter of (late) Sheikh
           Fajlur Rahman Chishti and wife of Md. Fayaz, resident of
           Hapta Minuthong, P.O. Imphal and P.S. Porompat, Imphal,
           District; Imphal East.
      9.   Israt, aged about 49 years, daughter of (late) Sheikh Fajlur
           Rahman Chishti and wife of Md. Sana, resident of Hapta
MC(CRP) No. 20 of 2016                                           Page 1 of 3
             Minuthong, P.O. Imphal and P.S. Porompat, Imphal,
            District; Imphal East.
      10. Ulfat, aged about 47 years, daughter of (late) Sheikh Fajlur
          Rahman Chishti and wife of not known, resident of not
          known, now serving as Assistant teacher in the Manipur
          Public School, Koirengei, P.O. Mantripukhri and P.S.
          Heingang, Imphal, District; Imphal West.
                            ...Proforma Respondents/Proforma O.P.

                         B EF O R E
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

                                  ORDER

08-07-2022 [1] By way of this miscellaneous case, the petitioner, being defendant No. 3 in Original Suit No. 33 of 2004/27/2009 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East, seeks condonation of the delay of 26 days in filing a revision under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 11-08-2016 passed by the Trial Court in Judl. Misc. Case No. 189 of 2012, refusing him leave to file his written statement.

[2] Mr. FA Khalid, learned counsel, entered appearance for respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel, entered appearance for proforma respondent No. 10. By order dated 02-03-2020, this Court dismissed the main revision as well as the condone delay petition as against respondent Nos. 2 to 9.

[3] Mr. FA Khalid, learned counsel, appearing for the contesting respondent No. 1, viz., the plaintiff in the suit, did not choose to file an affidavit opposing condonation of the delay. Proforma respondent No. 10 filed an affidavit-in-opposition raising the issue of maintainability of the revision under Section 115 CPC and not on the issue of delay. MC(CRP) No. 20 of 2016 Page 2 of 3 [4] Today, there is no representation for Mr. FA Khalid, learned counsel. Mr. Th. Thoungamba, learned counsel, represents Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel for respondent No. 10.

[5] As the delay is insubstantial in itself, being just 26 days, and as the contesting respondent, viz., the plaintiff in the suit, did not choose to oppose the condonation thereof, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.

The delay is accordingly condoned.

The miscellaneous case is allowed.




                                                      CHIEF JUSTICE

Victoria




NINGOM Digitally  signed
         by NINGOMBAM
BAM      VICTORIA
         Date: 2022.07.08
VICTORIA 17:52:06 +05'30'




MC(CRP) No. 20 of 2016                                             Page 3 of 3