Manipur High Court
Km. Huidrom Bimoti Devi vs Smt. Huidrom Bijenti Devi on 19 February, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
1
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2026.02.19
18:15:37 +05'30' Sl. No. 1(Suppl)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Mat. App. No.6 of 2026
Km. Huidrom Bimoti Devi, aged about 45 years, D/O Late H.
Gyanesor Singh, resident of Moirangkhom Sougaijam Leirak, PO
& PS Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.
Appellant
Vs.
1. Smt. Huidrom Bijenti Devi, aged about 48 years, W/O
Loukrakpam Kiran Singh, resident of Singjamei Mayengbam
Leikai, PO & PS Singjamei, District Imphal West, Manipur.
2. Shri Huidrom Naresh Singh, aged about 44 years, S/O Late H.
Gyanesor Singh, resident of Moirangkhom Sougaijam Leirak, PO
& PS Imphal, District, Imphal West, Manipur
3. Smt. Huidrom Garina Devi, aged about 37 years, W/O
Naoroibam Robi Singh, resident of Heingang Panthoibi Leikai,
PO Mantripukhri, PS Heingang, District Imphal East, Manipur.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
s
(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
19.02.2026.
[1] After some arguments, Mr. TH. Kunjaraj Singh, learned counsel
on record for the sole appellant sought leave of this Court to withdraw
captioned appeal but made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions
of the sole appellant to file another suit in the jurisdictional Family Court
seeking declaration qua State and other Governmental authorities who may
2
be necessary for appellant to get Family Pension vide office memorandum
dated 17.05.2011 made by Government of Manipur Secretariat: Finance
Department (Pay Implementation Cell) read with a corrigendum dated
27.06.2011.
[2] A scanned reproduction of the endorsement made by learned
counsel on record for sole appellant in the case file is as follows:
[3] Though it is a case of withdrawal, we deem it appropriate to
write that withdrawal became necessary inter-alia owing to Section 35 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘sad Act’) which makes it clear that a declaration
qua Chapter VI of said Act (captioned ‘Declaratory Decree’) is binding only
on the parties to the suit. In the case on hand, State/Governmental
authorities concerned are not party/parties to the suit. To be noted, there is
no dispute that the sole appellant filed the suit being
Matrimonial(Declaration) Suit No. 7 of 2025 CNR: MNIW05-000312-2025 on
the file of the Family Court Manipur at Lamphelpat Imphal solely for the
purpose of claiming family pension qua her late father, Mr. Huidrom
3Gyanesor Singh who was a Government employee/Government servant and
who was working as Superintendent under the Deputy Director of Industries,
Department of Industries, Government of Manipur, retired from service on
30.06.2010 and died 01.05.2023.
[4] If the sole appellant files a suit seeking declaration regarding
afore-referred subject matter arraying State/instrumentalities of
State/Government authorities concerned qua family pension vide afore-
referred office memorandum and corrigendum thereat, the same shall be
entertained by the jurisdictional Family Court and for this purpose, we make
it clear that such a suit, if filed will not be hit by res-judicata vide section 11
of the Code Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) as it would not be ‘suit between the
same parties’. However, the suit will be examined/tried on its own merits and
in accordance with law untrammeled by withdrawal of captioned appeal.
[5] In the light of the narrative thus far and in the light of
endorsement made by learned counsel on record for sole appellant,
captioned appeal is disposed of as closed/withdrawn albeit with preservation
of rights and contentions in the aforesaid manner and observations as above.
[6] There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
FR/NFR
