Manipur High Court
Km. Hijam Purnima Devi vs Hijam (N) Bhabi Devi on 29 April, 2026
Author: A. Bimol Singh
Bench: A. Bimol Singh
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2026.04.30
13:31:39 +05'30'
Item No. 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MAT. APP. No. 2 of 2026
Km. Hijam Purnima Devi, aged about 41 years, D/o Late Hijam Yaiskul
Singh of Kwakeithel Konjeng Leikai, PO & PS Singjamei, Imphal West
District, Manipur-(a mentally ill and disabled person having metal
impairment and represented by her elder sister)- Km. Hijam Bijenti Devi,
aged about 61 years, D/o Late Hijam Yaiskul Singh of Kwakeithel
Konjeng Leikai, PO & PS Singjamei, Imphal West Distrit, Manipur.
... Appellant
- Versus -
1. Hijam (N) Bhabi Devi, aged about 56 years, W/o Okram Boby
Singh of Khongjom Sapam Mayai Leikai, Thoubal District, Manipur.
2. Km. Hijam Sujata Devi, aged about 53 years, D/o Late Hijam
Yaiskul Singh of Kwakeithel Konjeng Leikai PO & PS Singjamei, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
3. Hijam Irabot Singh, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Hijam Yaiskul
Singh of Kwakeithel Konjeng Leikai, PO & PS Singjamei, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
4. Hijam Milanjit Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o Late Hijam Yaiskul
Singh of Kwakeithel Konjeng Leikai, PO & PS Singjamei, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BIMOL SINGH
For the appellant : Mr. RK Milan, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. N. Alex Meitei, Advocate
Date of hearing & order : 29.04.2026
Page 1|6
O R D E R
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] A very interesting scenario has unfurled in the captioned
matter. Captioned matter was referred to mediation, mediation was
successful, settlement has been arrived at and terms of settlement
have been reduced to writing but learned counsel for appellant
(instead of an order in terms of the terms of settlement) seeks leave
of this Court to withdraw the captioned appeal with preservation of
rights to file a suit afresh. The reason is, Mr. RK Milan, learned counsel
for sole appellant and Mr. N. Alex Meitei, learned counsel for all the
respondents submit in one voice, that captioned matter is directly and
squarely covered by an order dated 19.02.2026 made in MAT. APP.
No. 6 of 2026 by this Court and reproduction of this order is as follows:
’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 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.
Page 2|6
[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 Gyanesor 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 thisPage 3|6
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.’
Afore-referred learned counsel on both sides submit that
a similar order may please be made in instant case. In this regard, Mr.
RK Milan, learned counsel for appellant has made an endorsement in
the case file and scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
Page 4|6
[2] In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned statutoryappeal under Section 19 of ‘Family Courts Act, 1984‘ is disposed of
as withdrawn / closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions
in the manner set out in 19.02.2026 order more particularly Paragraph
No. 4 thereat. For the sake of specificity, this Court deems it
appropriate to clarify that if the appellant files a suit afresh, the same
shall be entertained by the jurisdictional matrimonial Court by strictly
adhering to Paragraph No. 4 of order dated 19.02.2026 in MAT. APP.
No. 6 of 2026 and dispose of the fresh suit on its own merits and in
accordance with law.
[3] If the appellant files a fresh suit, the jurisdictional Family
court shall make every endeavor to dispose of the fresh suit as
expeditiously as the Board/official business of the Family court would
permit as this Court is informed that the individual who is seeking
family pension has mental developmental issues and is under the care
and custody of a guardian, inter-alia in this view of the matter, if the
plaintiff takes out an application with the prayer to dispense with issue
of notice under Section 80 of the ‘Code of Civil Procedure, 1908′
(‘CPC‘ for the sake of brevity), the same shall be considered on its
own merits and in accordance with law by the jurisdictional court.
[4] Mediation proceedings and the settlement arrived at
therein stand effaced.
Page 5|6
[5] Captioned appeal disposed as closed/withdrawn albeitwith preservation of rights, observations and directives as above.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
Page 6|6
