KABORAMB Digitally signed AM by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH SANDEEP Date: 2025.11.12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC (W.A.) No. 70 of 2025 State of Manipur; & Ors.

Applicants Vs.

Ahanthem Abani Singh; & Ors.

Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA (ORDER)

(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)

11.11.2025 [1] Captioned Miscellaneous Case (MC) has been filed with a Condonation of Delay (CoD) prayer qua 1136 days delay in preferring an intra- court appeal, namely, Writ Appeal (WA) assailing ‘judgment and order dated 11.04.2022 made in W.P. (C) No. 41 of 2020’ (hereinafter ‘impugned order’ for the sake of brevity).

[2] Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel instructed by Ms. Nikita Mangsatabam, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. RK Banna, learned counsel on record for all 29 respondents are before this Court.

[3] Before we make a record of the proceedings, it is deemed appropriate to write that captioned matter is listed under the cause list caption ‘SERVICE NOT COMPLETED’.

This is plainly incorrect as all the 29 respondents have entered appearance through counsel, Mr. RK Banna and senior counsel Mr. A. Romenkumar is appearing on his behalf. Registry to list the matter under the caption ‘FOR ARGUMENTS/FOR HEARING’ in the next listing.

[4] Reverting to the trajectory the matter has taken, Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of counsel on record for respondents, raises a preliminary objection and that preliminary objection is that the main WA itself is not maintainable. Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of counsel on record for applicants, contends to the contrary and submits that it is maintainable.

[5] Maintainability issue arises in the following manner:

Assailing the impugned order, State filed an SLP in Hon’ble Supreme Court, SLP was dismissed (dismissed at pre-leave stage), State filed Review in Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking review of SLP order, the Review was also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter, State, in this Court sought review of impugned order but with a CoD application seeking condonation of delay qua Review and CoD also was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court, State has admittedly not assailed the CoD order but has filed the captioned main WA albeit with a CoD application seeking CoD of 1136 days delay.

[6] While Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of counsel on record for respondents, contends that State after having approached Hon’ble Supreme Court unsuccessfully, after having sought review in this Court and suffered a dismissal of the CoD application qua Review, cannot now file an intra-court appeal, Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of counsel on record for appellants, contends to the contrary and submits that it is maintainable. This issue has to be first determined by this Court.

[7] For determining the above issue, it is imperative for this Court to have the benefit of the ‘SLP order’, ‘Review order of Hon’ble Supreme Court’ as well as ‘CoD dismissal order made by Single Bench’. Learned State counsel sought time to produce those orders. Request acceded to.

[8] List on 08.12.2025.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep