JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

Leave granted.

1. The impugned order is an order passed in a Civil Revision Petition. The High Court has found that in view of the fact that the suit, filed by the appellant’s late father(Maringmei Thaitoungam) who had died and as no steps had been taken to implead his legal representatives, had abated, the result of the abatement of the suit filed by the appellant’s father, it was held, was that the civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of the Civil Procedure against an order refusing temporary injunction would no longer have to be proceeded with.

FACTS

2. It is the case of the appellant that his father (Maringmei Thaitoungam) became the headman of a village by name Lamdan Kabui in the year 1972. It is his further case that the post of Chief(Khullakpa) of the village Lamdan Kabui is hereditary as per the Rongmei Kabui Customary Law and as per which on the death of the chief of the village, the eldest clan member/son becomes the chief. The custom has been in existence since time immemorial and even notified in the Gazette. It is in terms of such custom that the appellant’s father became the chief in the year 1972.

3. The appellant’s father filed Original (Declaratory) Suit No.3 of 2014 on 10.03.2014 contending that he was the chief of village since 1972. His wife had passed away in the year 2013. The respondent herein claiming that a widower cannot become the chief, had forged certain proceedings declaring himself to be the chief. It was his further contention that even if the original plaintiff could not act as a chief, his son can become the chief. The appellant’s father sought a relief of declaration of his right as chief (Khullakpa). He further sought a declaration that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachndpur dated 20.01.2014 by which the respondent was recognised as chief was null and void and a permanent injunction was also sought for against the felling of trees.

4. The original plaintiff filed an application seeking injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 again seeking to restrain the respondent from acting as chief, felling of trees and collecting of house tax. The respondent filed his written objections. Suffice it to notice that the application seeking interim injunction was declined by the trial Court which resulted in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2014 being filed before the District Judge by the original plaintiff. Records came to be called for. The next circumstance to be noticed is crucial as it consists of the death of the original plaintiff-the appellant’s father(Maringmei Thaitoungam) which took place on 07.09.2014. This event took place during the pendency of the appeal against the refusal to grant interim order. In September, 2014, the appellant filed application before the appellate Court seeking to come on record as his legal representative. This application came to be allowed by order dated 18.09.2014.

5. On 23.12.2014, the respondent filed a suit(Original (Injunction) Suit No. 39 of 2014) seeking to restrain the appellant from acting as village chief. The respondent also filed an application seeking temporary injunction. The said application came to be allowed. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 2015 was filed again by the appellant challenging the order granting injunction against the appellant. The High Court by order dated 12.01.2016 directed verification as to whether after the death of the original plaintiff (the appellant’s father), any substitution had taken place in the suit.

6. On the application filed by the appellant seeking amalmagation of the two civil miscellaneous appeals, by order dated 27.11.2018, amalmagation as prayed for was allowed. A challenge to the same by the respondent resulted in order dated 15.04.2019 affirming the amalmagation. However, it was observed by the High Court that it was open to the respondent to contest the maintainability of the appeals. It is this order which led to the passing of orde