Manipur High Court
2026:Mnhc:153-Fb vs Oinam Ramesh Singh on 3 August, 2026
2026:MNHC:153-FB
REPORTABLE
Item Nos. 3 & 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 11 of 2026
1. Oinam Ibomcha Singh, aged about 74 years, S/O. (late) O. Ibotomba Singh
of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
Manipur, Pin No. 795 008 (died on 04.06.2025) represented by legal heirs
namely:-
(i) Thongam Ongbi Oinam Victoria Devi, aged about 46 years, W/O
Thongam Khomdon Singh of Kha Naorem Leikai, P.O. Canchipur &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 003 and
(ii) Laishram Ongbi Oinam Sushila Devi, aged about 42 years, W/O.
Keisam Prakash Singh of Nambol Sabal Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 134;
2. Oinam Ingobi Singh, aged about 52 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008;
3. Oinam Shyamchand Singh, aged about 51 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh
of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
Manipur, Pin No. 795 008;
4. Oinam Kiran Singh, aged about 49 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008;
5. Oinam Doren Singh, aged about 47 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008;
6. Oinam Hemanta Singh, aged about 37 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008;
Page 1 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FB
7. Oinam Kanta Singh, aged about 36 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008.
8. Oinam Noyon Devi, aged about 76 years, D/O (late) O. Ibomtomba Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008.
... PETITIONERS
-Versus-
1. Oinam Ramesh Singh, aged about 64 years, S/O. (late) Ibochouba Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008 (died on 23.12.2022) represented by legal heirs namely :-
(i) Oinam Ongbi Manglembi Devi, aged about 65 years, W/O. (late)
Oinam Ramesh Singh of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 008;
(ii) Oinam Niranjan Singh, aged about 35 years, S/O. (late) Oinam
Ramesh Singh of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 008 and
(iii) Oinam Gobinda Singh, aged about 33 years, S/O. (late) Oinam
Ramesh Singh of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 008.
2. Oinam Iboyaima Singh, aged about 68 years, S/o. (late) Oinam Ibochouba
Singh of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
Manipur, Pin No. 795 008.
... RESPONDENTS
With
MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227)) No. 19 of 2026
1. Oinam Ibomcha Singh, aged about 74 years, S/O. (late) O. Ibotomba Singh
of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
Manipur, Pin No. 795 008 (died on 04.06.2025) represented by legal heirs
namely:-
Page 2 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FB
(i) Thongam Ongbi Oinam Victoria Devi, aged about 46 years, W/O
Thongam Khomdon Singh of Kha Naorem Leikai, P.O. Canchipur &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 003 and
(ii) Laishram Ongbi Oinam Sushila Devi, aged about 42 years, W/O.
Keisam Prakash Singh of Nambol Sabal Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Nambol,
Bishnupur District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 134;
2. Oinam Ingobi Singh, aged about 52 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008;
3. Oinam Shyamchand Singh, aged about 51 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh
of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
Manipur, Pin No. 795 008;
4. Oinam Kiran Singh, aged about 49 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008;
5. Oinam Doren Singh, aged about 47 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008;
6. Oinam Hemanta Singh, aged about 37 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008;
7. Oinam Kanta Singh, aged about 36 years, S/O. (late) Ibomcha Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008.
8. Oinam Noyon Devi, aged about 76 years, D/O (late) O. Ibomtomba Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008.
… APPLICANTS
-Versus-
1. Oinam Ramesh Singh, aged about 64 years, S/O. (late) Ibochouba Singh of
Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin No. 795 008 (died on 23.12.2022) represented by legal heirs namely :-
Page 3 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FB
(i) Oinam Ongbi Manglembi Devi, aged about 65 years, W/O. (late)
Oinam Ramesh Singh of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 008;
(ii) Oinam Niranjan Singh, aged about 35 years, S/O. (late) Oinam
Ramesh Singh of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 008 and
(iii) Oinam Gobinda Singh, aged about 33 years, S/O. (late) Oinam
Ramesh Singh of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795 008.
2. Oinam Iboyaima Singh, aged about 68 years, S/o. (late) Oinam Ibochouba
Singh of Khongnangpheidekpi, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
Manipur, Pin No. 795 008.
… RESPONDENTS
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
For revision petitioners/ Mr. Th. Mahira, Advocate.
applicants
Date of Judgment & Order 03.08.2026
JUDGEMENT & ORDER
(Oral)
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this
order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl. Abbreviation/Short Full Form/Expansion
No. Form/other short
references
1. CRP Civil Revision Petition
2. M.C. Miscellaneous Case
Page 4 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FB
3. said entire land land admeasuring 0.50 acres or
thereabout in Revenue Village No.
59 - Oinam Thingel, Imphal West
vide Patta No. 365 (old) 60(new)
covered by C.S. Dag No. 618
4. plaint schedule land land admeasuring 0.25 acres or
thereabout being one half of
southern portion of said entire
land
4. written statement schedule northern portion of said entire
land land and 7 ft. wide COMMON
LAMBI/PATHWAY
5. Trial Court Court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Imphal West-II
6. First Appellate Court Court of Additional District and
Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur
East
7. CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[2] Short facts, shorn of elaboration and particulars not imperative for
appreciating instant order are that the revision petitioners before this Court filed
a plaint dated 07.01.2022 in Trial Court inter alia with a prayer for declaration
qua their half share in entire said land and also sought perpetual injunction
against defendants qua possession besides assailing an order dated
05.12.2017 made by jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner (D.C.) in a revenue
case (declaration that it is not binding) besides a declaration that an order made
by the D.C. in a review case is null and void; that on service of suit summons,
defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement dated 31.01.2022
together with a counter claim qua their half share of said entire land as also a
7 ft. wide COMMON LAMBI/PATHWAY; that it is to be noted that the defendants
prayed that the 05.12.2017 order made by jurisdictional D.C. in revenue case and
01.04.2021 order made in review by the jurisdictional D.C. are valid, binding and
Page 5 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FB
not void; that on completion of pleadings in this manner, 8(eight) issues were
framed by the Trial Court (to be noted, issues framed by the Trial Court will be
scanned and reproduced infra elsewhere in this order); that along with the plaint,
plaintiffs took out an injunction application dated 07.01.2022 and this was taken
on file as Judl. Misc. Case No. 6 of 2022; that the defendants also took out an
injunction application (to be noted, defendants had made a counter claim) and this
was taken on file as Judl. Misc. Case No. 16 of 2022; that the Trial Court took up
both the Judl. Misc. Cases (injunction applications) together and made a common
order dated 04.10.2022 directing parties to maintain status quo; that thereafter,
the defendants filed a review petition seeking a review of this order of status quo
(to be noted, order of status quo is dated 04.10.2022); that the review petition
was taken up by the Trial Court and the Trial Court in and vide an order dated
23.03.2022 noticing that the orders made by jurisdictional D.C. in revenue
proceedings had been carried to Revenue Tribunal and the Revenue Tribunal has
confirmed the order of the jurisdictional D.C. and that earlier status quo order was
made inter-alia owing to pendency in Revenue Tribunal, reviewed the status quo
order and granted injunction in favour of defendants as regards common
Lambi/Pathway; that it is to be noted, in and vide this order dated 23.03.2022 in
the review petition, Trial Court granted injunction only with regard to the COMMON
LAMBI/PATHWAY; that the plaintiffs carried this 23.03.2022 order in appeal to the
First Appellate Court by resorting to Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC and after full
contest, the First Appellate Court in and vide order dated 21.02.2026 (impugned
order) confirmed the order of the Trial Court granting injunction with regard to
Page 6 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FB
COMMON LAMBI/PATHWAY alone; contending that they are aggrieved by
impugned order, plaintiffs in trial Court have filed captioned CRP in this Court.
[3] In continuation of facts set out supra, a scanned reproduction of
the 8 issues framed by the Trial Court is as follows:
Page 7 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FB
[4] It is seen from the case file and the submissions of Mr. Th. Mahira,
learned counsel on record for revision petitioners that said entire land originally
belonged to one Oinam Amu Singh, he died intestate and his 2(two) sons
Oinam Ibotomba Singh and Oinam Ibochouba Singh inherited the said entire
land in equal shares. It has also been pleaded that there was a partition
between the heirs of 2(two) brothers, southern portion of said entire land fell to
the plaintiffs and obviously, the other portion fell to the defendants. This Court
refrains from expressing any opinion or view on this partition as neither a
partition deed has been placed before this Court nor has it been pleaded that it
is a case of Hindu Family Arrangement (oral arrangement) which was
subsequently recorded. All this would be a subject matter of trial. As regards
the revenue cases, the prayers for declaration by plaintiffs and prayers for
counter declaration by defendants, who are none other than first cousins of
plaintiffs, are also subject matter of trial.
[5] In the above scenario, this Court is informed that as regards the
revenue revision case in the Revenue Tribunal which confirmed the orders of
the jurisdictional revenue D.C., the same has not been assailed further as of
today.
[6] In the aforesaid backdrop, the Trial Court has granted an order of
interim injunction with regard to COMMON LAMBI/PATHWAY alone after perusal
of the revenue records and after perusal of the pleadings and this is obviously a
prima facie view as the Trial Court was hearing an Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2
application under CPC. The First Appellate Court adopted the approach that a First
Appellate Court hearing an appeal against an order of injunction, does not sit as a
Page 8 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FBCourt of re-appreciation of facts unless it comes to light that the discretion
exercised by Trial Court is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or based on
misapplication of settled principles of law. In the considered view of this Court,
there can be no two ways about this approach of the First Appellate Court in the
light of settled principles as regards the First Appellate Court, testing (by exercising
powers under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC) grant or refusal of discretionary relief
of injunction by Trial Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC.
[7] This Court also finds that the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court have carefully considered the 3(three) cardinal principles for
grant of injunction viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable legal injury. In any event, as already alluded to supra a very limited
injunction pertaining to what has been described as 7 ft. wide COMMON
LAMBI/PATHWAY has been granted. To be noted, description of pathway itself
‘COMMON LAMBI/PATHWAY’. This by itself justifies the grant of injunction, more
so, in the light of findings returned by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
that the plaintiffs have not been able to demonstrate that this is the only access
and that there is no other access for the plaint scheduled property. This Court is
also informed that the said entire land is homestead land, superstructures have
been put up and the same are in possession of respective parties who are first
cousins and co-owners prior to pleaded partition about which there is allusion
elsewhere supra in this order.
[8] Learned counsel for revision petitioners, adverting to issue No. 1
submitted that the question as to whether original area of 0.50 acres equivalent
to 0.1925 hectares recorded in the revenue records has been correctly
Page 9 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FBrecorded, is to be tested by the Trial Court. This submission does not cut ice
with this Court as the testing of whether said entire land was correctly recorded
in the revenue record will hardly impact an injunction regarding what has been
described as 7 ft. wide COMMON LAMBI/PATHWAY even by the protagonists of
the injunction application. To be noted, this Court is referring to the defendants as
protagonists of the injunction application qua Judl. Misc. Case No. 16 of 2022.
[9] As would be evident from the issues framed by the Trial Court, it
comes to light that Issue No. 3 pertains to the orders made by the revenue
authorities.
[10] Reverting to the main case in the Trial Court, this Court finds that
after completion of pleadings and framing of issues and filing of list of
witnesses, the suit was first listed for examination of plaintiffs’ side witnesses
on 13.05.2026. Thereafter, the suit has been listed for examination of plaintiffs’
side witnesses on two more dates viz., 18.06.2026 and 18.07.2026. It now
stands over to 21.08.2026.
[11] This Court is of the considered view that the first cousins who have
taken adversarial positions would do well to proceed with the trial expeditiously
and invite a final judgment decree in the suit.
[12] Before concluding, as regards the captioned CRP, the same has
been filed in this Court on 27.04.2026. Thereafter when it was first listed in the
admission Board on 29.04.2026, Mr. Th. Mahira Singh, learned counsel on
record for revision petitioners very fairly pointed out that a caveat petition has
been filed and it has been served on him. This Court places on record its
appreciation for this fair approach of Mr. Th. Mahira Singh. Thereafter, this
Page 10 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FBCourt directed the name of the caveator counsel to be printed but the caveator
counsel has not chosen to come before this Court either in the physical Court
or on the Video Conferencing (V.C.) platform on subsequent listings on
05.05.2026, 07.05.2026, 14.05.2026, 20.05.2026, 03.06.2026, 08.06.2026 and
18.06.2026. Today also, there is no representation for the caveator counsel
either in the physical Court or on the V.C. platform. This approach of the
caveator counsel is unacceptable. None appears for caveator on eight
consecutive listings after filing caveat though the name of the learned counsel
for caveator is shown in the cause-list and this clearly cannot be countenanced.
However, this Court refrains from elaborating further on the same as the
captioned matter does not cut ice and pass muster in the admission Board. In
any event, a caveator need not be heard with regard to admission, only if the
petitioner crosses the admission barrier and this Court examines the interim
order plea the question of hearing caveator would arise. Therefore, the absence
of caveator counsel is ignored but it is deemed appropriate to write that learned
caveator counsel had certain duty to come before this Court when name is
shown in cause-list.
[13] In the light of the narration, discussion, and dispositive reasoning
set out supra, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error (much
less error warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution) in the impugned order of the First Appellate
Court which has confirmed the order of the Trial Court.
[14] Before concluding and writing the operative portion of this order,
this Court, though obvious, deems it appropriate to write that the Trial Court
Page 11 of 12
2026:MNHC:153-FB
shall now proceed with the main suit on its own merits and in accordance with
law untrammeled by instant order as instant order has been made in a CRP
under Article 227 of the Constitution arising out of an interlocutory order made
in an injunction application taken out under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2. The
dispositive reasoning is for the limited purpose of disposal of CRP and will
neither impel nor impede both parties, when the main suit is heard out.
[15] Ergo, sequitur of narration, discussion and dispositive reasoning
supra is, captioned CRP fails to pass muster in the admission Board and the
same is dismissed. Consequently captioned MC thereat also perishes with the
main CRP and the same is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
FR/NFR
P.S. I : Upload forthwith.
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court website inter-alia
as the same is QR coded.
LAIRENMAY Digitally signed
UM by LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJEET SINGH
INDRAJEET Date: 2026.08.04
SINGH 18:56:06 +05'30'
Page 12 of 12
