Manipur High Court
Thokchom Manglembi Devi vs Thokchom (N) Phamdom (O) Nungshitonbi … on 6 May, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MAT. APP. No. 7 of 2026
Thokchom Manglembi Devi, aged about 48 years, D/o (L) Thokchom
Dhananjoy Singh, a resident of Keishampat Leimajam Leikai, PO & PS
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795001
... Appellant
- Versus -
1. Thokchom (N) Phamdom (O) Nungshitonbi Devi, aged about 46
years, D/o (L) Thokchom Dhananjoy Singh and W/O. Phamdom
Chandramani Singh, a resident of Ghari Awang Leikai, PO Tulihal & PS
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur Pin No.795140..
2. Thokchom (N) Wahengbam (O) Sanahanbi Devi, aged about 41
years, D/o (L) Thokchom Dhananjoy Singh & W/O Wahengbam
Nanaomacha Singh, Wahengbam Leikai, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur Pin No.795001.
3. Thokchom (O) Sabitri Devi, aged about 57 years, w/o late
Thokchom Priyokumar Singh, a resident of Keishampat Leimajam Leikai,
PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur -Pin No.795001.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the appellant : Mr. M. Nicky Singh, Advocate
For the respondents : Ms. L. Sillori, Advocate.
Date of hearing & order : 06.05.2026
Page 1|5
O R D E R
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] A very interesting scenario has unfurled in the captioned
matter. Learned counsel for sole appellant seeks leave of this Court to
withdraw the captioned appeal with preservation of rights to file a suit
afresh. The reason is, Mr. M. Nicky Singh, learned counsel on record
for sole appellant and Ms. L. Sillori, learned counsel on record 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.
[2] A scanned reproduction of the endorsement made
by learned counsel on record for sole appellant in the case file is
as follows:
Page 2|5
[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 bePage 3|5
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.
M. Nicky Singh, learned counsel for appellant has made an
endorsement in the case file and scanned reproduction of the same is
as follows:
Page 4|5
[2] In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned statutoryappeal 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,
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 order dated 19.02.2026, more particularly
paragraph 4 thereat 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 consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with
law.
[4] 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 5|5
