Item Nos. 1 & 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227)) No. 21 of 2026 Aribam Ongbi Ibemhal @ Kombi Devi, aged about 80 years, w/o late A. Haridash @ Narahari Sharma of Brahmapur Bheigyabati/Aribam Leikai, Imphal East P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Manipur & 6 ors. Applicant/s Vrs. Adhikarimayum Ongbi Bhanu @ Pakpi Devi, aged about 72 years, w/o late Adhikarimayum Gopal Sharma of Brahmapur Bheigyabati/Aribam Leikai, Imphal East, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Manipur & 18 ors. Respondent/s With MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227)) No. 22 of 2026 Aribam Ongbi Ibemhal @ Kombi Devi, aged about 80 years, w/o late A. Haridash @ Narahari Sharma of Brahmapur Bheigyabati/Aribam Leikai, Imphal East P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Manipur & 6 ors. Applicant/s Vrs. Adhikarimayum Ongbi Bhanu @ Pakpi Devi, aged about 72 years, w/o late Adhikarimayum Gopal Sharma of Brahmapur Bheigyabati/Aribam Leikai, Imphal East, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Manipur & 18 ors. Respondent/s BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR For Applicant Nos. 1,2 & 4 to 7 : Mr. L.N. Ngamba, Advocate For Applicant No. 3 Mr. Aribam Phulchand Sharma, party-in-person Date of Judgment & Order : 11.05.2026 LAIREN MAYUM INDRAJ EET SINGH Digitally signed by LAIRENMAYU M INDRAJEET SINGH Date: 2026.05.12 17:55:07 +05'30' JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) [1] This common order will now dispose of the captioned 2 MCs (Miscellaneous cases). [2] Mr. L.N. Ngamba, learned counsel for MC applicant Nos. 1, 2 & 4 to 7 are before this Court. As regards MC applicant No. 3 namely, Mr. Aribam Phulchand Sharma, he is appearing party-in-person and he is before this Court. To be noted, this Court is informed that Mr. Aribam Phulchand Sharma is also a Member of the Bar. [3] Be that as it may, the afore-referred 7(seven) MC applicants are the revision petitioners in the main CRP(Civil Revision Petition) which has been presented in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [4] As regards the captioned MCs, they have been taken out with innocuous prayers. While MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227)) No. 21 of 2026 has been taken out with a prayer to allow the MC applicants to file certified copy of order dated 15.12.2025 made in Original Suit No. 52 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior) Division, Imphal East. This ‘15.12.2025 order’ shall be referred to as ‘impugned order’ and ‘the Court which made the impugned order’ shall be referred to as ‘said Trial Court’ (both for the sake of convenience and clarity). [5] As regards captioned MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227)) No. 22 of 2026, the same has been filed with a prayer to this Court to allow the MC applicants to file a copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 52 of 2023 along with 33(thirty three) plaint documents, details of which are as follows: [6] Reverting to MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227)) No. 21 of 2026, there is also a prayer for condonation of delay qua filing certified copy of the impugned order. [7] Learned counsel and party-in-person adverting to the MC applications submitted that inadvertent and bonafide mistake in not applying for certified copy and not filing copy of the plaint and plaint documents earlier in paper book along with CRP is the only reason. [8] As regards condonation of delay in filing certified copy as afore- referred main CRP has been presented in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the question of CoD does not arise but the issue of delay/latches (if any) is left open to be raised by the respondents in the main CRP, if so advised and so desired. Considering the innocuous nature of the prayers and also taking into account the obtaining position that permitting certified copies to be filed is a matter between Court and the MC applicants and copy of plaint/plaint document being filed is only a routine course, both MCs are ordered as prayed for dispensing with notice to the respondents albeit with a rider as regards MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227)) No. 22 of 2026, it would be evident from the narrative thus far that it is an application seeking permission to file copy of the plaint and 33 plaint documents, only photocopy of the plaint and photocopy of the plaint documents have been filed. No permission is really necessary. Therefore, if there is any disputation, contestation as to whether the plaint and the plaint documents are true and correct photo copies as filed in the Trial Court, the question is left open for the respondents to raise in the main CRP when it is taken up. Likewise, though obvious it is made clear that no opinion or view has been expressed in this order regarding merits, plaint copy or plaint documents and all questions are left open if there is a contest in main CRP. [9] Captioned MCs ordered/allowed on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE Indrajeet