Manipur High Court
Khongbantabam Ibomcha Singh vs Kshetrimayum Biren Singh & 3 Ors on 20 March, 2026
Abujam
Surjit Singh Item Nos. 5-11
Digitally signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Abujam Surjit Singh AT IMPHAL
Date: 2026.03.20
18:59:10 +05'30' MC(El.Pet.) No. 111 of 2022
With
EL.PET. No. 10 of 2022
With
EL.RECR.PET. No. 21 of 2022
With
MC(EL.PET.) No. 88 of 2022
With
MC(EL.PET.) No. 89 of 2022
With
REV.PET(J2) No. 1 of 2022
With
REV.PET(J2) No. 2 of 2022
Khongbantabam Ibomcha Singh
Petitioner/s
Vrs.
Kshetrimayum Biren Singh & 3 ors.
Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
(ORDER)
20.03.2026
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of the earlier
proceedings made in the listing on 03.11.2025 which reads as follows:
‘03.11.2025
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of the earlier
proceedings made in previous listing dated 29.10.2025 which reads as
follows as:
“Matter mentioned at 2:00 pm
Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (returned
candidate), requests for an adjournment citing counsel inconvenience.
Page 1|4
Mr. T. Rajendra, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Sh. Bikash
Sharma, learned counsel for election petitioner is before this Court.
Both sides agree that MC (EL. PET.) No. 111 of 2022, which is a
petition taken out by respondent No. 1 with rejection of plaint plea
will be heard out in the next listing which will be on Monday.
List on 03.11.2025.”
2. Today the captioned matter is listed under the cause title
caption ‘SERVICE NOT COMPLETED’ however, learned counsel for
petitioner draws the attention of this court to judicial order dated
27.05.2022 made by Hon’ble processor judge which reads as follows:
“[1] Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
[2] Mr. Suraj, learned Jr. counsel to Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned
counsel represented by that he is going to appear for respondent
No.1 and he is also going to file Vakalatnama today.
[3] It is reported that notice has already served to respondent
Nos.2 to 4 but none appeared before this Court today.
[4] Registry is directed to print the name of respondent Nos. 2 to
4 in the cause-list.
[5] Therefore, post this matter on 15.06.2022.”
3. Paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the afore referred 27.05.2022
judicial order is most relevant. This means that Registry ought not
have listed the captioned matter under the cause list caption
‘SERVICE NOT COMPLETED’.
4. Let these matters be listed under appropriate caption showing
the name of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 or their counsel if they have
entered appearance through counsel.
5. List on 12.11.2025.’
2. In the hearing today, Mr. T. Rajendra, learned senior counsel
instructed by Mr. Th. Henba, learned counsel on record for election
Page 2|4
petitioner and Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel on record for R-1(returned
candidate) are before this Court.
3. There is no representation for R-2, R-3 and R-4 today also
though they have been duly served. In the light of earlier proceedings, more
particularly, proceedings dated 03.11.2025 (extracted and reproduced
supra) R-2, R-3 and R-4 are set ex-parte.
4. To be noted, ‘R-1’, ‘R-2’, ‘R-3’ and ‘R-4’ denote ‘first
respondent’, ‘second respondent’, ‘third respondent’ and ‘fourth respondent’
respectively.
5. As regards M.C(El. Petn.) No.111 of 2022 which has been
taken out by the returned candidate, Mr. Ajoy Pebam is ready to advance
arguments but Mr. Th. Henba, learned counsel for election petitioner
requests for a short accommodation stating that an unreported judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court and a Press note which learned counsel for
returned candidate intends to rely on has been furnished to him only
today. This Court pointed out that election petitions have to go on a day-
to-day basis and learned counsel on both sides submitted that they will take
more care in this regard in days to come.
6. In M.C(El. Petn.) No.111 of 2022, the caption says it has been
filed under two provisions namely Order VII Rule 11(a) of ‘the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908′ ( ‘CPC‘ for the sake of brevity) and Section 86(1) of ‘the
Representative of the People Act, 1951‘ (‘RP Act’ for the sake of brevity).
In the prayer in M.C(El. Petn.) No.111 of 2022, there is reference to three
Page 3|4
provisions namely Order VII rule 11(a) of CPC, Order VI Rule 16 of CPC
and Section 86(1) of RP Act.
7. Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for returned candidate very
fairly submitted that he is invoking only one provision namely Order VII
Rule 11(a) CPC. This submission is recorded. To put it differently, learned
counsel on record for returned candidate submits that he is not invoking
section 86(1) of RP Act and Order VI Rule 16 of CPC. As regards captioned
M.C(El.Petn.) No.111 of 2022 is concerned, this also means the captioned
M.C(El. Petn.) No.111 of 2022 will now be tested only as an application
Under order VII Rule 11(a).
8. Adjourned at the request of learned counsel for election
petitioner.
9. List on 25.03.2026.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Ab. Surjit
Page 4|4