Leihaothabam Ningol Gurumayum Ongbi Sanjana @ Nanao Devi v. Smt. Gurumayum Padma Devi and 6 Others

CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 49 of 2023 Sanjana @ Nanao Devi & ors.

… Petitioners

Mr. S. Roger, learned counsel appearing for the respondents seeks three weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

Mr. Ajitkevin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has no objection.

As prayed for, list this case again on 29-01-2024. In the meantime, the respondents are directed to file their counter affidavit on or before the next date without fail with advance copy to the counsel for the petitioners.

IN. 12 14:18:30 +05'30' MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 47 of 2023 (Ref:- CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 49 of 2023) Sanjana @ Nanao Devi

… Applicant

Heard Mr. Ajitkevin, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. S. Roger, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The present application had been filed with a prayer for exemption in filing the certified copy of the impugned order.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant had already applied for a certified copy of the impugned order and that as soon as the certified copy is available, the same will be filed and brought on record. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that they have no objection.

In view of the submission made by the counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, this court find sufficient ground for allowing the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

Applicant is directed to file the certified copy of the impugned order as soon as the same is available.

With the aforesaid direction, the present application is disposed of.

IN. 13 by 14:18:46 +05'30' MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 48 of 2023 (Ref:- CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 49 of 2023) Sanjana @ Nanao Devi

… Applicant

Heard Mr. Ajitkevin, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. S. Roger, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

The present application had been filed with the prayer for staying the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the revision petition.

By the impugned order, the learned Revenue Tribunal had allowed the condonation application filed by the respondents and as such, this court is of the considered view that instead of passing any interim order, it will be just and proper to decide the connected revision petition on merit.

Accordingly, this court is not inclined to pass any interim order and the present application is hereby dismissed.

IN. 14 14:18:59 +05'30'