Tombisana High School vs State Of Manipur

M. Sundar, CJ

[1] In the hearing today, Ms. Sarvodaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Senior Advocate and learned Advocate General of Manipur instructed by Ms. Thanyomi Keishing, learned State counsel for respondent are before this Court.

[2] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made on 05.11.2025 and Para No. 8 of this proceedings dated 05.11.2025 reads as follows:

‘[8] The following points require clarity:

(i) what is the fate of the afore-referred rejection of plaint application?

(ii) whether any issue regarding declaration as bad the 03.08.1978 order of the Education Department, Government of Manipur taking over the plaintiff High School has been framed? To be noted, this is prayer limb No.(ii)in the recast plaint, also to be noted, in the seven issues and two additional issues dated 07.05.2015 and 06.10.2015 respectively, we do not find any such issue.

(iii) Whether the Trial Court resorted to Order XIV Rule 2 Sub-Rule (2)(b) of CPC(Preliminary issue) at all?

(iv) No issues have been set out in the impugned judgment and decree much less, have issues been answered in conformitywithOrderXIVRule1ofCPC?

(v) From the records we find that no documents have been exhibited (plaint documents/defendants ’documents have not been marked as exhibits) and no oral evidence appears to have been let in as there is no deposition.’

Ms. Sarvodaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for appellant, adverting to afore-referred Paragraph No. 8 of the proceedings dated 05.11.2025, made following responses:

(i) no order has been made in the rejection of plaint application i.e., Judicial Misc. Case No. 363 (A) of 2014, in other words the same has not been taken up and it appears to have perished with the suit on 15.05.2017 (though no specific order to this effect has been made);

(ii) neither plaintiff filed draft issues in this regard nor has the Court framed any issue in this regard;

(iii) Trial Court did not resort to Order XIV Rule 2 Sub- Rule 2 (b) (preliminary issue) of CPC;

(iv) no issues vide Order XIV Rule 1 of CPC have been framed;

(v) there was no trial i.e. neither was any document marked as exhibit nor was there any deposition.

[3] Ms. Sarvodaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for appellant is ready to advance arguments but Ms. Thanyomi Keishing, learned State counsel requested for time stating that she needs to get more instructions for briefing learned Advocate General of Manipur.

[4] Afore-referred request of learned State counsel is acceded to.

[5] List a fortnight hence.

[6] List on 16.04.2026.