Manipur High Court
Shri Lorho S.Pfoze vs Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin ... on 8 December, 2021
JOHN
TELEN KOM
Digitally signed by
JOHN TELEN KOM
Date: 2021.12.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
16:06:09 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
MC(EP) No.39 of 2021
Ref:Election Petion No.1 of 2019
Shri Lorho S.Pfoze, aged about 59 years S/O Late A. Sibo Pfoze,
resident of Kayinu Village, P.O. & P.S.- Mao, District, Senapati,
Manipur-795150.
....... Applicant
- Versus -
1. Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin aged about 36 years S/O
(L) H. Jamkhokhai Mate, resident of Tengnoupal Village, PO &
PS- Tengnoupal, District-Tengnoupal, Manipur-795131.
2. Angam Karung Kom, aged about 65 years, S/O Late Ashong
Kom, resident of K.R. Lane, PO & PS- Porompat, District-Imphal
East, Manipur-795005;
3. Shri Hangkhngpau Taithul, aged about 55 years, S/O Late T.
Doupu, resident of Singngat Hausa Veng, PO & PS-Singngat,
Churachandpur District, Manipur-795139;
4. Mr. Ashang Kasar @ Wungnaishang Kasar @ Wungnao Shang
Kasar, aged about 43 years, S/O Ngashathing Kasar, resident of
MC(EP) No.39 of 2021. Page 1
Chadong Village, PO & PS - Litan, Kamjong District, Manipur-
795145;
5. Leikhan Kaipu, aged about 54 years, S/O Late Leikhan Kokan,
resident of Heikakpokpi Village, PO Pallel P.S.- Machi, Machi
Sub-Division, Tengnoupal District, Manipur-795135
6. Thangminlien Kipgen, aged about 64 years, S/O Late Thangpu
Kipgen, resident of Haipi Village, PO- Kalapahar, Kangpokpi
District, Manipur-795122;
7. Shri K. James, aged about 56 years, S/O Late K. Ngatangmi,
resident of Tangkhul Hungdung Khullen, PO Lamlong, P.S. Litan,
Kamjong District, Manipur-795010
Presently residing at JIM Blessing Home, Sangaiprou
Mamang Leikai, Airport, Airport Road, PO & PS-Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.
.... Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Applicant/s : Mr.H.S. Paonam Sr., Advt.
For the Respondent/s : Ajoy Pebam, Adv.
Date of hearing & reserved : 10.11.2021
Date of Judgment & Order : 08.12.2021
MC(EP) No.39 of 2021. Page 2
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] This application has been filed by the applicant seeking to reject the
subsequent pleading filed by the election petitioner as it amounts to amendment
of election petition after the expiry of 45 days in filing Election petitions as
prescribed in Representation of the People Act, 1951.
[2] The first respondent herein is the election petitioner.
[3] Heard H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the applicant and
Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
[4] Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the applicant
submitted that while filing the replication by the election petitioner, he has
brought on record new facts and materials which were not part of election petition
originally and that too filed after the expiry of 45 days and therefore, the same is
liable to be rejected. He would submit that all facts should be stated in the
election petition and no new facts can be permitted to be inserted in the
replication and that the replication sought to be made by the election petitioner
MC(EP) No.39 of 2021. Page 3
clearly violates the requirement of Section 81 of the Representation of the People
Act.
[5] Learned senior counsel for the applicant further submitted that the
election petition should disclose specific facts, however, in the instant case, the
first respondent/election petitioner failed to give details of material facts in his
election petition. According to learned counsel, Section 83 of the Representation
of the people Act provides that any election petition should contain the concise
statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies and in the
absence of any concise statement of material facts, the replication is nothing
else, but an attempt to amend the election petition by way of filing replication.
Such action on the part of the election petitioner should not be allowed and is
also not permissible in law, inasmuch as the election petitioner is debarred from
bringing in new facts by way of filing replication.
[6] Per contra, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the first
respondent/election petitioner submitted that taking long period of time the
applicant filed his written statement to the election petition only on 15.7.2021 and
while filing the written statement, the applicant asserted new facts over and
above denial of assertion made in his written statement. He would submit that
MC(EP) No.39 of 2021. Page 4
when the election petition came up for hearing on 18.8.2021, this Court passed
an order allowing the first respondent to file replication and as an abundant
caution, the first respondent filed his replication along with M.C. (EP) No.27 of
2021 for filing replication.
[7] Learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that
when the application for receipt of replication came up for hearing on 18.8.2021,
the applicant has not objected to the filing of the replication and in fact, learned
counsel appearing for the applicant prayed for allowing to file a reply to the
replication filed by the first respondent. Instead of filing reply to the replication,
the applicant has filed the present application raising objection to the subsequent
pleading of the election petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the first
respondent/Election petitioner prayed for dismissal of the application.
[8] This Court considered the submissions raised by learned counsel
appearing on either side and also perused the material available on record.
[9] The instant election petition has been filed by the first
respondent/Election petitioner challenging the election to the 17th Lok Sabha,
2019 in respect of the 2-outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency. The
applicant filed his written statement to the election petition only 15.7.2021.
MC(EP) No.39 of 2021. Page 5
[10] According to the applicant, while filing the replication, the first
respondent has brought on record new facts in paragraphs 8,9,10,11,15,17 and
22, which were not original part of the election petition and therefore, the
replication/subsequent pleading is liable to be rejected.
[11] It appears that the first respondent filed M.C. (EP) No.27 of 2021 to
permit the first respondent to file replication and when the said application was
taken up for hearing on 28.9.2021, the applicant has not objected, instead he
prayed to file reply to the replication. While that being so, the applicant is barred
from filing the present application raising objection to the subsequent pleading
of the election petitioner.
[12] On a perusal of the replication filed by the first respondent, it is seen
that the pleading made in the replication are the clarification of the pleading made
in the election petition. On a further perusal of the replication, it is also seen that
to controvert the averments made in the written statement to the election petition,
the first respondent has filed the replication. This Court also finds that averments
pleaded in the replication are not contrary to the averments made in the election
petition and in fact, they are only explanatory to the plea taken by the applicant
in the written statement. Only in order to explain/clarify the plea of the applicant,
MC(EP) No.39 of 2021. Page 6
the first respondent has filed the replication and no new facts or new pleas have
been taken by the first respondent in the replication.
[13] The argument of the applicant that the replication sought to be
made by the election petition clearly violates the requirement of Section 81 of
the Act and that the first respondent sought to introduce new facts after the expiry
of 45 days cannot be countenanced for the reason that the first
respondent/Election petitioner does not insert any new facts. As stated supra,
the statement made in the replication are the denial of the statement made in the
written statement filed by the applicant to the election petition. If the same is
received, no prejudice would be caused to the other side.
[14] The law is well settled that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise
a new plea under the garb of filing rejoinder/replication or take a plea inconsistent
to the pleas taken by him in the plaint, nor the rejoinder can be filed as a matter
of right, even the court can grant leave only after applying its mind on the pleas
taken in the plaint and the written statement. Here is the case where the election
petitioner has taken inconsistent to the pleas already taken by him in the election
petition. The pleas taken in the replication are only the denial of statement made
in the written statement.
MC(EP) No.39 of 2021. Page 7
[15] Moreover, it is the bounden duty of the election petitioner to clarify
the statement made by the applicant in his written statement. As such there is
no question of applicability of Section 81 of the Act. That apart, there is no bar
for clarification of the earlier pleading, which is already taken in the election
petition by the first respondents herein. For all the above reasons, this Court
finds that the Objections raised by the applicant are not sustainable and the
present application is liable to be dismissed.
[16] Accordingly, M.C. (EP) No.39 of 2021 is dismissed.
[17] No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John kom
MC(EP) No.39 of 2021. Page 8
