Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Manipur · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1142 (MAN)

STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR v. SOCIO ECONOMIC AND WELFARE ORGANISATION AND ANR

MC(CRP(CRP Art.227)/42/2024 · 2025-02-14

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

P a g e | 1 Item No. 23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 42 of 2024 State of Manipur and Another …Applicants - Versus - Socio Economic and Welfare Organisation and Another …Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR O R D E R 14-02-2024 Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. AG assisted by Mr. W. Niranjit, learned Deputy Government, appears for the applicant and Mr. S. Ajoi, learned counsel, appears for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Kh. Ajit Singh, Registrar Judicial, High Court of Manipur is also present before this Court. The applicants have filed the instant miscellaneous application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for condoning the delay of 119 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. This Court is of the view that there is no provision for filing the condone delay application in preferring the Civil Revision Petition. Learned Additional Advocate General also states that filing of condone delay application will not be necessary in preferring the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also reiterated the same stand taken by the learned Addl. Advocate General. Considering the submissions, there is no provision in filing the SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2025.03.10 15:10:58 +05'30' P a g e | 2 application to condone the delay in filing the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Registry numbered the application without considering the provision. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the parties that if any delay in filing the civil revision petition, the same will be considered as delay and laches. Therefore, the counsel appearing for the petitioner states that they are not pressing for the application and mistakenly, the same is filed before the Registry. In view of the submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General, the application is rejected. Registry is directed to number the Civil Revision Petition, if it is otherwise in order and list the same for admission. CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil