Manipur HC Restores Status Quo On Stream Flow, Directs Expedited Trial

Safeguarding agricultural water channels from unverified obstructions, the High Court of Manipur has restored an interim status quo order to protect the natural course of a vital irrigation stream until the underlying civil suit is finally decided.

In a single-judge proceeding presided over by Chief Justice M. Sundar, the High Court addressed a civil revision petition challenging lower court orders that had vacated interim protections over a disputed natural stream.

Key Takeaways

· Protection of Natural Watercourses

Long-standing status quo orders regarding essential irrigation streams must be maintained when core facts like water supply dependence remain uncontested.

· Preclusion of Procedural Delays

Trial courts cannot allow pending revision applications to bring trial proceedings to a complete standstill through indefinite sine-die adjournments.

· Restoration of Interim Relief

Appellate orders vacating status quo merely due to lack of documentary proof at the interim stage are liable to be set aside when trial issues are framed.

High Court's Rationale and Directions

Evaluating the uncontested factual baseline, the High Court emphasized that the existence of the stream, the surrounding agricultural lands of both parties, and the reliance on the stream for irrigation were admitted facts. The Court noted that since an interim status quo order had been continuously operating in some form across different forums since August 2022, it was appropriate to maintain that protection while directing the trial court to swiftly decide the main suit on merits.

The Court has following directions:

"(a) impugned order of first appellant court being order dated 17.04.2025 in Misc. Civil appeal No.1 of 2024 is set aside;

(b) as the impugned order of the first appellate court confirms the order of trial court dated 12.02.2024, the order of said trial court dated 12.02.2024 made in Judl. Misc. Case No.264 of 2022 in Original Suit i.e., O.S. No.18 of 2022 is also dislodged/set aside;

(c) axiomatically, the order of status quo granted by said trial court in Judl. Misc. Case No.264 of 2022 in Original suit No.18 of 2022 on 24.08.2022 is restored and the same will continue to operate till disposal of main suit i.e., said suit and said trial court shall expedite the said suit, frame issues, conclude the trial and return a verdict as expeditiously as the official business of said Trial court would permit;"

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the light of narration thus far, this Court finds that existence of stream, existence of agricultural lands of both plaintiff as well as members of said association and defendants and irrigation of agricultural lands from said stream are not in dispute and further even the construction is not in dispute and only contestation is, while plaintiff contends that the construction is for diverting the flow of said stream to agricultural lands of defendants, the defendants are contending that construction is to restore the said stream to its original course and prevent further destruction of agricultural land. In this view of the matter, coupled with the fact that the status quo order has been operating... this Court is of the considered view that the status quo order should continue to operate and said trial court should now expedite trial and conclude said suit."

Ratio

Where the physical existence of a natural watercourse and mutual agricultural reliance upon it are undisputed, an established interim status quo order protecting its flow ought to be maintained during the pendency of the suit, while the trial court is mandated to conclude the suit expeditiously without sine-die adjournments.

Background

The revision petitioner, acting as the plaintiff, filed Original Suit No. 18 of 2022 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction. The suit concerned a stream flowing from west to east near the agricultural lands of the plaintiff and members of the 'Khalok Loukon Lourup' association. The plaintiff alleged that earth-digging and construction works undertaken by the defendants diverted the natural flow of the stream to their own lands, depriving the plaintiff of irrigation.

On August 24, 2022, the trial court initially granted an ex-parte status quo order in Judl. Misc. Case No. 264 of 2022. However, on February 12, 2024, the trial court vacated the order on the premise that the plaintiff had not produced documentary proof of the defendants' construction. An appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed by the District Judge, Bishnupur, on April 17, 2025. Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India via CRP No. 30 of 2025.

During proceedings, the High Court noticed that while pleadings were completed in the trial court, the suit had been repeatedly adjourned sine-die owing to the interim stay prayers. The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside both the appellate and trial court orders vacating protection, restored the original status quo order of August 24, 2022, and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRP(C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 30 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:MNHC:190
Case Title: Th. Lungpuijai v. Lambidin & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Anandita, Advocate along with Ms. Pushpatolly M, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mayonkui Ngalung, Advocate along with Mr. Decembering, Advocate.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAN) 70