Manipur High Court
Rev.Pet(J2)/2/2025 of PG Chunhemlung Vs DP Korungthang on 10 June 2026
Item No. 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Rev.Pet.(J2) No. 2 of
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
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.
O R D E R
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 +05'30'
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Captioned review petition is disposed of as withdrawn/closed. There shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE Indrajeet