IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(The High Court of Assam,Nagaland, Meghalaya,Manipur,

Tripura,Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

IMPHAL BENCH

CIVIL REVISION PETITION(Art.227) NO.9 OF 2006

Ref:-Original Suit No.27 of 2002

The Ningthemchakhul Progressive Youth Club,

Regd. NO.5172 of 1984 represented by its President
Wangkhem Rojen Meitei, S/o W. Manao Singh of
Ningthemcha Khul, B.P.O. Ningthemchakhul, P.S
Lamlai, District Imphal East, Manipur.
… Petitioner
-vrs-
The Okshu Youth Social Welfare Club
Regd. No.1608 of 1974 represented by its
President Waikhom Ibomcha Meitei
S/o late W.Lala Singh of Okshu Village,
B.P.O. Ningthemchakhul, P.S. Lamlai,
District Imphal East, Manipur.
… Respondent.

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. NANDAKUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner :: Mr. N.Surendrajit Singh
Advocate

For the Respondent :: None appears

Date of Motion Hearing/

Judgment and Order :: 18th September, 2006

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. N. Surendrajait Singh, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner-association.
 2

2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and

order of the learned District Judge, Manipur East dated 15.12.2003
passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003 whereby and
whereunder the learned District Judge, Manipur East allowed the
Civil Misc. Appeal NO. 8 of 2003 preferred against the judgment
and order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Imphal East
dated 21.2.2003 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 91 of 2002 (Ref:
O.S. NO.27 of 2002). The petitioner -association filed the Original
Suit No.27 of 2002 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Imphal East, Lamphelpat against the present respondent for a
decree for permanent injunction order against the present
respondent/defendant and its members from entering into the suit
land. It is said that the petitioner-association also filed an
application for granting temporary injunction which has been
registered as Judicial Misc. Case No.91 of 2002 in the O.S.No.27
of 2002.

3. The precise fact of the case of the petitioner -association is

that the petitioner- Association is registered in the year 1984.
Undisputedly the suit land is a government khash land measuring
an area of 8.10 acre covered by Dag No.252 of Village No.80
Okshu, Imphal East Tahasil. It is said that the suit land has been
using and occupying by the petitioner-association for the last many
years. It is said that the manners of occupation of the suit land by
the petitioner-association are: - (I) by constructing office building
and (2) using as a playground. The defendant-association had
interfered with the peaceful possession of the suit land by the
petitioner-association. Such being the situation, petitioner-
association filed Original Suit No.27 of 2002 against the
respondent-association for permanent injunction as well as
temporary injunction.
 3

4. The only case of the defendant-association is that the suit

land had been possessing by the plaintiff-association and
defendant-association jointly. In that regard, they produced some
documents.

5. The Trial Court passed the judgment and order dated

21.2.2003 in Judl. Misc. Case No.91 of 2002 (Ref: O.S.NO.27 of
2002 restraining the defendant/respondent-association and their
agents from interfering with the possession of the suit land by the
petitioner-association.

6. The defendant/respondent-association preferred an appeal

being Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003 against the judgment and
order of the learned trial court, i.e. Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Imphal East dated 21.2.2003 passed in Judl. Misc. Case NO.91 of
2002 before the learned District Judge, Manipur East.

7. The learned first appellate court, i.e. District Judge, Manipur

East, passed the reasoned judgment and order dated 15.12.2003 in
Misc. Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003 by setting aside the judgment and
order of the trial court, i.e. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Imphal East
dated 21.2.2003 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 91 of 2002. It
appears that the learned first appellate court in its judgment and
order dated 15.12.2003 had come to the findings that the learned
Trial Court while passing the order dated 21.2.2003 in Judl.Misc.
Case No.91 of 2003 had not discussed thoroughly the documents
filed by the defendant-association as well as the appellant/plaintiff.
Against the judgment and order of the first appellate court, i.e. the
District Judge, Manipur East, dated 15.12.2003 passed in Misc.
Civil Appeal No.8 of 2003 the present revision petition or
application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed.
 4

8. Mr. N. Surendrajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner-association has strenuously and capably put up the case
of the appellant/plaintiff. But this Court observed that the
amendment of the CPC by Act 46 of 1999 is based on the
Malimath Committee’s recommendations. The amended section
115 CPC, does not permit a revision petition being filed against an
order disposing of an appeal against order of the trial court whether
confirming, revisioning or modifying the injunction granted by the
trial court. The reason is that the order of the High Court passed
either way would not have the effect of finally disposing the suit or
other proceedings. Even after the amendment of the CPC on the
recommendation of the Malimath Committee, the interlocutory
order, passed by the subordinate courts to the High Court, against
which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC
Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in,
and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227of the
constitution of India. The rationale behind giving wide power to
the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for
keeping the subordinates court to the High Court within the bound
of their jurisdiction. The High Court still has the power of judicial
review of the interlocutory order which would finally amount to
disposing of the suit or proceedings and also the interlocutory
order which shall cause a great injustice to the parties.

9. In the instant case, the judgment and order of the trial court
as well as of the appellate court in the said miscellaneous appeal
will not amount to finally disposing of the civil suit, i.e. Original
Suit No.27 of 2002. The petitioner-association, could not make out
a case that the learned first appellate court had acted or exercised
the jurisdiction with material irregularities in passing the impugned
 5

judgment and order dated 15.12.2003 in the Civil Misc. Appeal

No.8 of 2003.

10. Having regards to the above submissions, this court is of the

considered view that the present revision petition is devoid of
merit. Accordingly, dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, the trial court should make an
endeavour to dispose of the Original Suit No.27 of 2002 as
expeditiously as possible so as not to cause any injustice to either
of the parties because of the delay in disposing of the Original Suit
No.27 of 2002.
Sd/- T.Nk Singh,
JUDGE