CRP(C.R.P.Art.227) No.30 of 2023

Page 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

CRP(C.R.P.Art.227) No.30 of 2023

Shri Konthoujam Dhananjoy Singh, aged about 71 years, S/o Late K.

Mukta Singh, a resident of Lalambung Makhong Naosekpam Leikai under

P.O. & P.S. Lamphel in Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004.

……. Petitioner/s

– Versus –

1. Shri Tongbram Lokendro @ Loken Singh, aged about 63 years, S/o Late T.

Iboton Singh, a resident of Lalambung Makhong Naosekpam Leikai under

P.O. & P.S. Lamphel in Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004.

2. Shri Tongbram Labango Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o Late T. Iboton

Singh, a resident of Lalambung Makhong Naosekpam Leikai under P.O. &

P.S. Lamphel in Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004.

3. Shri Tongbram Kamni Singh, aged about 61 years, S/o Late T. Iboton

Singh, a resident of Lalambung Makhong Naosekpam Leikai under P.O. &

P.S. Lamphel in Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004.

4. Shri Tongbram Kuber Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Late T. Iboton Singh,

a resident of Lalambung Makhong Naosekpam Leikai under P.O. & P.S.

Lamphel in Imphal West District, Manipur – 795004.

…. Respondent/s

LAIRENMAYU

M INDRAJEET

SINGH

Digitally signed by

LAIRENMAYUM

INDRAJEET SINGH

Date: 2023.06.16

14:00:30 +05'30'

CRP(C.R.P.Art.227) No.30 of 2023

Page 2

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

For the Petitioner/s

: Mrs. G. Pushpa, Advocate &

Ms. Ranjeeta Th., Advocate

For the Respondent/s

: None appeared

Date of Hearing

:

06.06.2023 & 08.06.2023

Date of Judgment & Order :

15.06.2023.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(CAV)

[1]

The petitioner/plaintiff approached this Court by way of the present

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness

of the impugned order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Imphal West-I in Execution Case No.6 of 2012 (Ref: OS No.44 of 2008,

CA No.6 of 2010). By the impugned order, the executing Court, i.e., the Ld. Civil

Judge, Junior Divion, Imphal West-I framed 2(two) points for determination, i.e.,

(i) Whether the Respondents/Judgment Debtors (JDs) had violated the decree

in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff? and (ii) Whether Respondent/Judgment

Debtor(JD) Nos.2, 3 & 4 are agents or associates of Respondent/Judgment

Debtor(JD) No.1? The Executing Court further directed the parties to produce

witnesses to decide the above 2(two) points before passing a final order in the

execution case.

[2]

The issues involved in the present petition are- (a) Whether a

previous judgment is relevant and admissible in a subsequent civil proceeding of

CRP(C.R.P.Art.227) No.30 of 2023

Page 3

the same suit property in terms of the provisions of Sections 40 to 43 of the

Evidence Act? and (b) Whether the present case falls within the meaning of

‘exceptional and rare case’ warranting taking of evidence in an execution

proceeding as contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of

Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi: (2021) 6 SCC 418 @ Para 42.9?

[3]

The brief fact of the present case is that the petitioner/plaintiff filed

a suit of permanent injunction being OS No.44 of 2008 in the Court of the then

Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal against the respondent No.1 as defendant

with respect to the homestead land under patta No.687/1049/687/

715(old)/93(new) covered by C.S. Dag No.145 having an area of .0220 hectares

situated in Village No.89-Khwai Lalambung, Imphal West. It is stated that the

petitioner/plaintiff purchased the suit land from one Th. Ibotomba Singh with

delivery of possession at Rs.14,500/- (Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred)

vide a registered sale deed 29.08.1985 and he got mutated his name in the suit

land. During the trial, respondent/JD No.1 did not produce any evidence in

support of his written statement. Vide judgment and order dated 30.12.2009 in

OS No.44 of 2008