MC (MAF) No. 2 of 2021 with MC (MAF) No. 3 of 2021 Page 1 Item No. 2 & 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC (MAF) No. 2 of 2021 Thokchom Narjit Singh Applicant Vs. Thokchom (O) Leibaklei Devi; & Ors. Respondents With MC (MAF) No. 3 of 2021 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR ORDER 14.02.2025 The applicant has filed the instant applications praying for recalling the order dated 11.02.2013 passed in MAF No. 1 of 2008 which was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the conducting counsel namely, M. Bimol Sharma, advocate. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, states that the applicant was not informed by the said conducting counsel and as such, he was not aware of the fate of the case and hence he has been waiting for the further communication from the said conducting counsel. The applicant came to know on 19.03.2021 that the conducting counsel had expired four/five years ago after long illness, and thereafter, on contacting the present counsel, he came to know that MAF No. 1 of 2008 was dismissed for default of prosecution. Hence the instant application has been filed for recalling the said order along with condonation of delay application. This court has gone through the reasons explained in the affidavit submitted by the applicant, however, details and particulars for contacting the then counsel regarding the status of the case, have not been furnished. The said affidavit also does not disclose the date of expiry of the former counsel. Further, it seems that the petitioner had the information about the dismissal of the said case for non- prosecution. KABORAMBA M SANDEEP SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2025.02.14 17:05:40 +05'30' MC (MAF) No. 2 of 2021 with MC (MAF) No. 3 of 2021 Page 2 The reasons elaborated by the applicant is not satisfactory. The applicant, who has filed the appeal, should be also vigilant to have regular contact with the conducting counsel to know the status of the case. Merely making such allegation against the conducting counsel after his expiry cannot be accepted and therefore the said application filed by the applicant alleging the conducting counsel for not properly conducting the case, is liable to be rejected. Considering the fact that the aforesaid MAF No. 1 of 2008 was dismissed by this Court on 11.02.2013, and thereafter, after a long delay of more than 8 (eight) years, the applicant has filed instant application for recalling the said order along with condonation application without any satisfactory explanations for the entertaining the same. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid reasons elaborated by the applicant and subsequently the present applications are dismissed being devoid of merits. The CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep