AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
| Sl. No. | Abbreviation/Short Form/other short references | Full Form/Expansion |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | CRP | Civil Revision Petition |
| 2. | said trial court | Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Imphal West-I at Lamphelpat, |
| Sl. No. | Abbreviation/Short Form/other short references | Full Form/Expansion |
| 3. | said civil suit | Original Suit No. 18 of 2003 on the file of said trial court |
| 4. | CPC | The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) |
| 5. | impugned order | Order dated 04.04.2018 made by said trial court in Judicial Misc.Case No.121 of 2017 taken out by sole plaintiff in said civil suit. |
| 6. | said Judl. M.C. | Judicial Misc. Case No.121 of 2017 taken out by sole plaintiff in said civil suit on the file of said trial court. |
| 7. | R1 | Respondent No.1 |
| 8. | R2 | Respondent No.2 |
| 9. | R3 | Respondent No.3 |
| 10. | R4 | Respondent No.4 |
| 11. | R5 | Respondent No.5 |
| 12. | R6 | Respondent No.6 |
| 13. | R7 | Respondent No.7 |
| 14. | R8 | Respondent No.8 |
| 15. | R9 | Respondent No.9 |
[2] Said civil suit which is in the nature of a partition suit amongst coparceners is vintage nay ancient. The reason is, the plaint presented in said trial court is dated 25.04.2003. It is now 2(two) decades and 3(three) years old. In less than 2(two) years from now, it will be quarter century old.
[3] In the hearing today, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel on record for the 6(six) CRP petitioners and Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel on record for R1 (B) (Mr. Chakpram Angou Singh aged about 55 years S/o Late Ch. Kulla Singh) are before this Court (physical Court). To be noted, as regards R1 who was sole plaintiff in said civil suit on the file of said trial court, he died on 31.12.2012, pending said civil suit and his 5(five) legal heirs namely wife, 2(two) sons and 2(two) daughters have been brought on record. These 5(five) legal heirs have been shown as R1 (A), R1 (B), R1 (C), R1 (D) and R1 (E).
[4] This Court is informed that all the respondents in the captioned CRP have been duly served and only R1 (B) has chosen to enter appearance through counsel and Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel is before this Court (physical Court). This Court is also informed that the other respondents who have not chosen to enter appearance in spite of being duly served have since been set ex-parte on 18.01.2023 vide a judicial order made by predecessor Bench. This means that both the contesting parties in the captioned CRP are before this Court.
[5] In the said civil suit, sole plaintiff took out said Judicial Misc. Case inter-alia under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend the pleadings. This amendment application was resisted by respondents and after full contest, said trial court made the impugned order allowing the implead application inter-alia noticing that there is a remand and a de novo trial. It is not necessary to elaborate more and/or dilate further on facts as both the contesting parties now agree for a consent order.
[6] Though the revision petitioners came to this Court assailing the impugned order allowing the amendment application of plaintiff, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel on instructions, submits that the revision petitioners now agree to have the amendments carried out by the plaintiff pursuant to impugned order but the rights and contentions of the revision petitioners to file appropriate additional written statement meeting the amended portions on merits may please be preserved. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel on record for R1 (B) very fairly and readily agrees to this proposal. Therefore, captioned CRP is now disposed of vide instant consent order.
[7] The following order is made:
Impugned order being order dated 04.04.2018 made in Judicial Misc. Case No. 121 of 2017 in Original Suit No.18 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Imphal West-I at Lamphelpat is sustained;
The plaintiff shall now carry out amendments in the said civil suit on the file of the said trial court pursuant to impugned order following procedural requirements;
Thereafter, the revision petitioners who are defendants in the said civil suit on the file of the said trial court will be at liberty to file additional written statement/s meeting the amended portions of the plaint on merits.
[8] After completion of additional pleadings in the aforesaid manner, the trial court shall frame additional issues and proceed with trial by examining/appreciating the pleadings and evidence before it on its own merits and in accordance with law. Said trial court will do well to expedite trial subject only to any civil suit of the year prior to 2003 pending in that court.
[9] Before writing the concluding paragraph, though obvious, this Court deems it appropriate to write that this Court has not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter.
[10] Captioned CRP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner albeit with aforesaid observations. There shall be no order as to costs.