Manipur High Court
Km. Rajkumari Bhanishana Devi vs R.K. (N) Thokchom Binde Devi on 6 May, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MAT. APP. No. 9 of 2026
Km. Rajkumari Bhanishana Devi, aged about 50 years, daughter of (Late)
RK Chourajit Singh and (Late) RK Shyamasakhi Devi, a resident of
Keishampat Leimajam Leikai, P.O. & P.S -Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur
... Appellant
- Versus -
1. R.K. (N) Thokchom Binde Devi, aged about 49 years, (Late) R.K.
Chourajit Singh and (Late) R.K. Shyamashakhi Devi and wife of Th.
Premkumar Singh, resident of Sagolband Nepra Menjor Mamang Leikai,
PO & PS-Imphal, District-Imphal West, Manipur.
2. Rajkumar Singhajit Singh, aged about 44 years, son of (Late) R.K.
Chourajit Singh and (Late) R.K. Shyamashakhi Devi, resident of
Keishampat Leimajam Leikai, PO & PS- Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
3. R.K. (N) Thounaojam Nomita Devi, aged about 42 years, (Late)
R.K. Chourajit Singh and (Late) R.K. Shyamashakhi Devi and wife of
Thounaojam Jiten Singh, resident of Khagempalli Pankha Nganappi
Thong Mamang Leikai, PO & PS-Imphal, District-Imphal West, Manipur.
4. R.K. (N) Wairokpam Radhapyari @ Baby Devi, aged about 40
years, (Late) R.K. Chourajit Singh and (Late) R.K. Shyamashakhi Devi
and wife of Wairokpam Bijoy Singh, resident of Keishampat Leimajam
Leikai, PO & PS-Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Respondents
Page 1|6
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the appellant : Mr. Keisham Priyobrata Singh,
Advocate
Date of hearing & order : 06.05.2026
O R D E R
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] When the captioned matter was first listed (previous
listing) on 30.04.2026, the following proceedings were made.
There is no representation for appellant either in the physical
court on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform.
However, with the intention of giving opportunity to appellant and
learned counsel for appellant, let this matter stand over to
06.05.2026.
List under the cause list caption ‘ADJOURNED ADMISSION’.
List on 06.05.2026.
Today, Mr. Keisham Priyobrata Singh, learned counsel
on record for sole respondent, adverting to afore-referred earlier listing
regretted and tendered apology for missing the matter in the previous
listing. Apology accepted and matter is taken up.
[2] A very interesting scenario has unfurled in the captioned
matter. Though listed in the admission Board, learned counsel for
appellant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned appeal
with preservation of rights to file a suit afresh. The reason is, Mr.
Page 2|6
Keisham Priyobrata Singh, learned counsel for sole appellant submits
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.
[2] A scanned reproduction of the endorsement
made by learned counsel on record for sole appellant in the case
file is as follows:
Page 3|6
[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 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.'
Page 4|6
Afore-referred learned counsel for sole appellant submits
that a similar order may please be made in instant case. In this regard,
Mr. Keisham Priyobrata Singh, learned counsel for appellant has
made an endorsement in the case file and scanned reproduction of
the same is as follows:
[3] In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned statutory
appeal under Section 19 of ‘Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984)’ is
disposed of as withdrawn / closed albeit with preservation of rights and
contentions in the manner set out in afore-referred 19.02.2026 order
more particularly Paragraph No. 4 thereat. For the sake of specificity,
Page 5|6
this Court deems it appropriate to clarify that if the appellant files a suitafresh, the same shall be entertained by the jurisdictional matrimonial
Court by strictly adhering to order dated 19.02.2026 in MAT. APP. No.
6 of 2026, more particularly paragraph 4 thereat and dispose of the
fresh suit on its own merits and in accordance with law.
[4] If the appellant files a fresh suit, the same shall be
considered on its own merits and in accordance with law by the
jurisdictional court.
[5] Captioned appeal is disposed as closed/withdrawn albeit
with preservation of rights and observations as above. There shall be
no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
Page 6|6
