Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Manipur · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2719 (MAN)

Usham Ningol Konjengbam Ongbi Modhubala Devi v. Konjengbam Kebol Singh and 3 others

MC(Mat.App.)/3/2025 · 2025-09-18

Ahanthem Bimol Singh

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 | P a g e Sl. No. 22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(Mat.App.) No. 3 of 2025 Usham Ningol Konjengbam Ongbi Modhubala Devi Applicant Vs. Konjengbam Kebol Singh and 3 others Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ ) 19.09.2025 [1] Captioned MC has been filed with the CoD prayer qua 44 days in filing an appeal against the family court order dismissing a suit. [2] The reason for delay can be culled out from the support petition and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. To be noted, it is submitted that the counsel was away in Delhi for medical examination. [3] The respondents, though served, have not chosen to come to this Court. This court is informed that respondents have not chosen to enter appearance through any counsel. [4] The respondents were given an opportunity even in the previous listing before this court on 04.09.2025 and proceedings in the SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2025.09.25 17:51:09 +05'30' 2 | P a g e orders made by the predecessor Bench on 04.09.2025 which reads as follows : “Ms. H. Bisheshwari Devi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that notice has been duly served upon the respondents through substitute service and that proof of service has been filed. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. In the interest of justice, no adverse order is passed today. Let this case be listed again on 19.09.2025 so as to enable the respondents to appear before the Court and contest the case.” [5] In spite of more than one opportunity being given to the respondents, respondents have not chosen to come this Court and oppose the CoD prayer. [6] Be that as it may, the reasons for delay which have been captured supra is acceptable. [7] The sequitur is, delay is condoned. Captioned MC is ordered as prayed for, i.e., delay condoned. [8] There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil