Manipur High Court
MC(CONT.CAS(C))/18/2026 of M. SULE Vs M. HAREKRISHNA AND 8 OTHERS on 29 July 2026
No. 18 of 2026 Page 1 Item Nos. 53 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
MC(Cont. Case(C) No. 18 of 2026
Item Nos. 53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(Cont. Case(C)) No. 18 of 2026
[Ref: Cont. Case(C) No. 140 of 2022]
M. Sule
…Applicant/s
Vrs.
M. Harekrishna & 8 Ors
…Respondent/s
-B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
30.07.2026
Mr. L. Raju, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant, Md. Fakharuddin, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2, Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 & 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 6.
The present application has been filed with a prayer for impleading the following 4 officers as respondents nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9
in the connected Cont. Case (C) No. 140 of 2022:-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Lamgin Singsit, Treasury Officer, Senapati Government Quarter, Senapati Mini Secretariat, SP. Office Complex, Senapati – 795106.
2. Rebek Lalparvul, Treasury Officer, Sadar Hills, DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi – 795129.
3. Biju Keisham, Treasury Officer, Chandel, DC Office Block-D, P.O & P.S. Chandel – 795127. Lucy Gurum ayum Digitally signed by Lucy Gurumayum Date: 2026.07.30 17:50:00 +05'30'
MC(Cont. Case(C) No. 18 of 2026
4. Lucy Haokip Luthang, Treasury Officer, Churachandpur, Treasury Square, Central Lamka, Churachandpur – 795128.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that due to subsequent development which occurred after filing of the connected contempt case, the above mentioned 4 officers are required to be impleaded as respondents nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9 in the connected contempt case as they are the responsible officers for complying with the direction given by this Court. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and on examination of the record, this Court is of the considered view that impleadment of the above mentioned 4 officers in the connected contempt case as respondent nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9 are necessary. Accordingly, the impleadment application is allowed. Registry is directed to incorporate the above name officers as respondent nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9 in the connected contempt case. With the aforesaid direction, the present application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Lucy