Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 56 (MAN)

Laishram Sudhir Singh v. Kumam (O) Damayenti Devi

2018-09-26

R.SUDHAKAR

body2018
ORDER : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. A. Jagjit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.3.2017 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal West in Judl. Misc. Case No. 343 of 2016 Ref:- Original (Declaration) Suit No. 68 of 2013 (75/13), which reads as follows: "The parties by counsel present. This matter relates to a prayer for allowing to represent the defendant No. 1 & 2 as a special Power of Attorney holds under Order III Rule 2 C.P.C. It is objected. Heard both the parties. The prayer if allowed no prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiff. Hence, the prayer is allowed. Announced." 3. At the outset, it has to be pointed out that Judicial Misc. Case No. 343 of 2016 in Original (Declaration) Suit No. 68 of 2013 (75/13) has been disposed of by a cryptic order as has been recorded above. 4. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration against the respondent No. 2 & 3 who were defendants No. 1 & 2 in the suit in respect of suit scheduled property. While the suit was going on, Judl. Misc. Case No. 458 of 2014 was filed on the premise that respondent No. 1 herein is the power of attorney holder and her application was allowed and she represented respondent No. 2 & 3/defendant No. 1 & 2 as power of attorney holder. But subsequently, respondent No. 1 withdrew the Judl. Misc. Case No. 458 of 2014 on 7.3.2016. Thereafter, the present Judl. misc. case No. 343 of 2016 has been filed. And despite a very strong and serious objection raised by the plaintiff/civil revision petitioner herein that the petition was not maintainable because the earlier application being Judl. Misc. Case No. 458 of 2014 was withdrawn without leave, and the second judicial misc. case No. 343 of 2016 is barred by law, that proposition has not been considered by the Court below but simply observed that an objection has been filed and that the prayer, if allowed, no prejudice should be caused to the plaintiff. 5. It is pleaded by Mr. case No. 343 of 2016 is barred by law, that proposition has not been considered by the Court below but simply observed that an objection has been filed and that the prayer, if allowed, no prejudice should be caused to the plaintiff. 5. It is pleaded by Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff that such a cryptic order, without considering the scope of the Order III Rule 2 C.P.C. once again without getting liberty of the Court is bad, as has not been considered by the Trial court. 6. On the contrary, Mr. A. Jagjit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, claiming to be the power of attorney holder of respondent No. 2 & 3 pleaded that respondent No. 1 is the niece of respondent No. 2 & 3, and Judl. Misc. Case No. 458 of 2014 was withdrawn on the premise that the matter was to be resolved amicably. However, since the issue was not resolved, it forced her to file the subsequent Judl. misc. case No. 343 of 2016 to defend the suit on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 3/defendant No. 1 & 2. 7. Be that as it may, on going through the order of the Court below dated 2.3.2017, passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 343 of 2016 which is challenged before this Court, the main objection raised by the revision petitioner/plaintiff that the Judl. misc. case No. 343 of 2016 ought not be entertained in view of the fact that the earlier Judl. Misc. Case No. 458 of 2014 filed for the same relief was withdrawn without liberty, and therefore, there is a bar in law in accepting the subsequent application, was not considered by the Court below. 8. The scope of such an objection has to be considered by a reasoned order by the Court below and not by a cryptic order, as has been passed, in the present case. 9. In this view of the matter, the Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order dated 2.3.2017 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 343 of 2016 and remand the case back to the Trial Court to decide the Judl. Misc. Case No. 343 of 2016 on merit after hearing both the parties. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands disposed of as above.