SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Manipur) 89

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, J.
Lainingba Mangi - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Resopndent
R.S.A. No. 1 of 2006
Decided On : 02-06-2015

Important Points

Non-compliance with procedural requirements such as Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and Section 80 of CPC can lead to the dismissal of a suit.

Subject

Civil Law - Procedural Law

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.1 R.8, O.1 R.8(2), O.23 R.1, S.80, S.99

Headnote

Alphabets - Meitei Mayek - Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, Section 80 of CPC - The judgment discusses the alphabets of the Meitei Mayek script and their resemblance to Nagari and proto-Bengali script. It also addresses the non-compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and the defects in the notice served under Section 80 of CPC.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the expert opinion should be treated as final and the alphabets considered in the expert opinion be declared as the original/oldest Meitei Mayek. The defendants raised technical objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction, and non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of service of notice u/s.80 of the CPC.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court allowed the suit, declaring that the scripts described in the plaint schedule bear resemblance with Nagari and proto-Bengali script. The district judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, citing non-joinder of necessary parties, non-compliance with notice requirements, and lack of documentary evidence.

Issues: The issues included the resemblance of the scripts to Nagari and proto-Bengali, the controversial order of the Govt. of Manipur, territorial jurisdiction, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party, representative capacity of the suit, cause of action, and entitlement to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found non-compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and defects in the notice served under Section 80 of CPC, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed due to the non-compliance with mandatory provisions, resulting in the dismissal of the suit.

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:N. Mahendra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S. Rupachandra, A.S.G. and H. Raghumani, G.A.

JUDGMENT

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal against a reversing judgment and decree. The suit was filed for a declaration that the expert opinion dt. 8.7.1996 in connection with the alphabetical epigraphs are the original/oldest Meetei Mayek. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the Secretary of Apokpa Marup, Saiton Loishang Masha, APOKPA MARUP and is authorised by resolution dt. 1.9.1998 to do anything for the welfare and development of the said Marup and that he filed the suit in representative capacity by virtue of the said resolution.

2. The further case of the plaintiff-appellant is that, Apokpa Marup organization is a non political social organization established in the year, 1930 and the Marup was registered in the year, 1949-50. The aim and object of the organization is for maintenance and discovery of socio culture, religion and customary rights of the Meetei people. The founder of the organization moved from one place to another across the country for collecting archaeological remains of ancient history and customs and religion etc. and in the process collected some archaeological remains like bronze plate, coin and stone inscription etc. The founder discovered that the holly book of the Meetei 'Shakok Thiren" had been re-written in the same script using alphabetic which had been recovered. The founder expired in the year, 1941 leaving behind his followers and family. Presently, the organization has more than few lakhs of Members. The Marup discovered that there was civilised nation in the far east Asia known as Meetei Leipok before 15th Century A.D. The civilization was idealistic civilization and not materialistic one. It extended to the part of China (Khaki) and Myanmar (Burma) and some part of Assam covering North eastern India. The language was called, "Meitei language." The meaning of Meetei covers people living in hills and plain known as Meitei Leipak and such people were living near about Brahamputra in the west and China win River in the East. Even though the people living in the hills speak their own dialect, Meetei language was a national language. Meetei People also used their own scripts for letter writing and for other purposes. The organization having found the above materials, started opening schools across the country and also approached the Government of Manipur in the Education Department for recognizing their alphabetic chart as the original Meitei scripts which are 36 in number. The Secretary of the Education Department, Govt. of Manipur passed an order on 9.5.1959 which according to the organization is controversial, doubtful and disputed. In the meantime, Manipuri language was recognized as scheduled language from 1991 onwards. After such controversy was raised by the Government with regard to the alphabetic, the organization approached the Chief Epigraphist, Govt. of India, Mysore and the expert accepted the alphabetic epigraph submitted by the organization as the original alphabets. Therefore, the suit was filed for a declaration that the expert opinion dt. 8.7.1996 should be treated as final and the alphabets considered in the expert opinion be declared as the original/oldest Meitei Mayek.

3. Both the Government of Manipur and the Union of India filed a joint written statement. A technical objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had filed the suit in a personal capacity and not in the representative capacity. Jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, before whom the suit was filed, was also questioned. All the claims made in the plaint were denied and it was also stated in the written statement that the mandatory requirement of service of notice u/s.80 of the C.P.C. was not complied with.

4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Civil Judge, framed the following issues:

1. Is there Saiton Loisang Masa Apokpa Marup having its Head Office at Thongju Part-II Regd. 52/1949-50?


















































1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top