LAISHRAM DAMAYANTI DEVI v. THOUNAOJAM TARUNKUMAR SINGH
Court: High Court of Manipur
Bench: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Manipur judgment dated 2020-01-22. LAISHRAM DAMAYANTI DEVI v. THOUNAOJAM TARUNKUMAR SINGH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL RFA No. 1 of 2019 Smt. Laishram Damayanti Devi & 2 Ors. ……. Appellant/s – Versus – Shri Thounaojam Tarunkumar Singh & 2 Ors. …Respondent/s BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. V. MURALIDARAN 22. 01. 2020 [1] In view of the order passed on 22. 01. 2020 by this Court in MC(RFA) No. 1 of 2019, this RFA No. 1 of 2019 is closed. [2] This Court came to know that along with condonation delay petition in MC(RFA) No. 1 of 2019, the main first appeal was numbered in RFA No. 1 of 2019 by the Registry of this Court which is not proper. [4] Therefore, this Court wants to issue suitable directions to the Registry of this Court as follows:- (a) When an appeal cases like Cril. Appeal, Cril. Rev. Petn. , Second Appeal, Civil Rev. Petn. , First Appeal and Writ RFA No. 1 of 2019 Page 1 Appeals have been filed by the parties along with condonation of delay, the Registry is directed to number the condonation delay petition alone and not to number the main cases.
(b) Unless the condonation delay petition is ordered, the Registry have no right to number the main cases along with the condonation of delay petition. (c) Therefore, the Registrar (Judicial) is hereby directed to issue suitable directions to all the sections of the Registry that while numbering the condonation delay petition, Registry should not number the main cases along with condonation delay petition unless it is ordered by the Court. [5] This should be strictly followed by the Registry. JUDGE -Larson RFA No. 1 of 2019 Page 2
Source: High Court of Manipur. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.