Item No. 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Rev.Pet.(J2) No. 2 of 2025 PG Chunhemlung, aged about 43 years, S/o. PG Gaidinrei, resident of Guigailong, Langol, Imphal West, Manipur, Proprietor of M/S Swang Dwang (SD), having its office at Guigailong, Langol Imphal West, Manipur – 795004. Petitioner -Versus- DP Korungthang, aged about 39 years, S/o. Medun Maring, resident of Lamlong Khullen, Chandel, Manipur – 795135. Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR For revision petitioner Mr. Leo N., Advocate Date of Order 11.06.2026 O R D E R [1] Captioned review petition has been filed seeking review of an ‘order dated 24.04.2025 made in CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 24 of 2024’ (‘said CRP order’ for convenience). Mr. Leo N., learned counsel on record for review petitioner who is before this Court submits that said CRP order was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) in and by an order dated 19.12.2025. Mr. Leo N., learned counsel on record for review petitioner has placed before this Court order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19.12.2025 and scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: LAIREN MAYUM INDRAJ EET SINGH Digitally signed by LAIRENMAYU M INDRAJEET SINGH Date: 2026.06.11 20:06:20 +05'30' [2] In the light of afore-referred order of Hon’ble Supreme Court captioned review petition has become infructuous, is learned counsel’s say. Learned counsel, saying so, sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned review petition and learned counsel made an endorsement in the case file in this regard and scanned reproduction of the endorsement is as follows: [3] Be that as it may, as regards the sole respondent in the captioned review petition, this order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the listing on 16.12.2025 which reads as follows: ‘16.12.2025 Mr. K.R. Pamei, learned counsel for review petitioner is before this Court and learned counsel requests for an accommodation citing difficulty for the arguing counsel. Be that as it may, in the last 2(two) listings on 14.10.2025 and 18.11.2025 there was no representation for the respondent, the proceedings made in these two listings are as follows: ‘14.10.2025 Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Leo N., learned counsel for review petitioner is before this Court but there is no representation for respondent. With the intention of giving one more opportunity to respondent and learned counsel for respondent, let captioned matter stand over by four weeks. List on 18.11.2025.’ ‘18.11.2025 Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 14.10.2025, which reads as follows: ‘14.10.2025 Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Leo N., learned counsel for review petitioner is before this Court but there is no representation for respondent. With the intention of giving one more opportunity to respondent and learned counsel for respondent, let captioned matter stand over by four weeks. List on 18.11.2025.’ Today Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Leo N., learned counsel for review petitioner, is before this Court but there is no representation for the respondent either in the physical Court or on the V.C. platform. As this is the second consecutive listing in which there is no representation for respondent, it is made clear that in the next listing also if there is no representation for the respondent, the matter will be heard out on the basis of available records, case file and after hearing learned counsel for review petitioner. Let the matter stand over to 16.12.2025 albeit with the aforementioned caveat. List on 16.12.2025.’ To be noted, today also there is no representation for respondent either in the physical Court or on the Video Conferencing (V.C.) platform. In the light of the earlier proceedings and in the light of there being no representation for the respondent today also, it is made clear that the captioned matter will be taken up and heard out on the basis of submissions of counsel before this Court and on the basis of the record before this Court. Captioned matter adjourned with the afore-referred caveat. List on 20.02.2026.’ [4] To be noted, today also, there is no representation for the respondent either in the physical Court or on the Video Conferencing (V.C.) platform, inter alia in the light of earlier proceedings dated 16.12.2025, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the captioned review petition as withdrawn/closed on the ground that the same has become infructuous, taking note of the endorsement made by learned counsel on record for review petitioner. [5] Captioned review petition is disposed of as withdrawn/closed. There shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE Indrajeet