“Next Assembly election is likely to be held in the month of February, 2022 and the suit is not likely to be decided before it. It will be fruitful if all the Warring groups sit together to have commonly accepted representative body of the party,” said District Judge, Imphal West A Guneshwar Sharma
TFM Desk
Stating that MPP is one of the oldest regional parties in India and has contributed much to the development of Manipur, a court in Imphal West on Saturday exhorted all rival groups of MPP explore possibility of an amicable settlement.
“Next Assembly election is likely to be held in the month of February, 2022 and the suit is not likely to be decided before it. It will be fruitful if all the Warring groups sit together to have a commonly accepted representative body of the party,” said District Judge, Imphal West A Guneshwar Sharma.
The District Judge made the suggestion while hearing a petition filed by one Haobijam Gitajen Meitei who claimed to be MPP general secretary (Admn).
The district judge further stated that otherwise, in this factional conflict, the party will be the only casualty. “CJSD, Imphal West may explore the possibility of an amicable settlement by invoking the mandate of Section 89 of CPC,” he added.
Observing that in the present case, there are more than one groups who claimed to be real office bearers/members of the Manipur People Party, the court said the plaintiff and his group were elected as office bearers by the Central Committee in its meeting held on 11/02/2020 for a term of three years.
The court further observed as per records and pleadings, this election of the plaintiff and others has not been challenged by any other members before a competent forum, except in the present suit where the defendants have questioned the legality of the election for violation of various rules as embodied in the party Constitution.
On the other hand, the defendants are disputing the legality of election of the plaintiff and his group in the main suit and the question is to be decided by the Trial Court. The defendants and others are also members of MPP belonging to other different groups, it said.
Considering the available materials on record and the rival submissions along with the case law cited at bar, the court observed that it does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 24/09/2021 passed by the Id. CJSD, Imphal West in Judl. Misc. Case No. 176/2021 [Ref: OS No. 60 of 2021].
However, in the impugned order, there is no specific order on eviction of the plaintiff from the office premises. In the circumstances, the possession of the office room (not the whole office complex, i.e., Schedule Land) by the plaintiff is restored, provided that the plaintiff and his group shall submit an undertaking to the DM, Imphal West under Section 107 CrPC for keeping peace and maintaining public tranquillity and observe the conditions imposed in order dated 28/09/2021, it added.The court clarified that this permissive possession to the plaintiff of occupying the office room shall not be treated as declaring them as true office bearers of MPP and the same is to be decided in the trial. The plaintiff shall not undertake any steps which will prejudice the interest of MPP and other members, it said disposing of the appeal filed by Haobijam Gitajen.