Manipur High Court
Shri Thangjam Arunkumar vs Shri Okram Henry Singh on 11 April, 2023
[1]
SHOUGRAK Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
PAM DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH
Date: 2023.04.11
DA SINGH 15:48:04 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(El. Petn.) No. 136 of 2022
(Ref:- El. Petn. No. 1 of 2022)
Shri Thangjam Arunkumar, aged about 54 years, S/o (Late)
Thangjam Birchandra of Chingmeirong Mamang Leikai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
... Applicant
-Versus-
1. Shri Okram Henry Singh, aged about 37 years, S/o (Late) O.
Lukhoi Singh of Khurai Ahongei, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
District-Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
... Principal Respondent
2. Shri Yumkham Erabot Singh, aged about 82 years, S/o (Late)
Y. Angangyaima Singh of Khurai Ahongei, P.O. Imphal & P.S.
Porompat, District- Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
3. Shri Rajkumar Priyobarta Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o R.K.
Maipaksana Singh of Nongmeibung Wangkheirakpam Leikai,
P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795005.
... Proforma Respondents
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ref: Election Petition No. 1 of 2022
Shri Okram Henry Singh, aged about 37 years, S/o (Late) O.
Lukhoi Singh of Khurai Ahongei, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District-
Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
.... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Shri Thangjam Arunkumar, aged about 54 years, S/o (Late)
Thangjam Birchandra of Chingmeirong Mamang Leikai, P.O.
Contd.../-
[2]
Lamlong, P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal East, Manipur -
795010.
2. Shri Yumkham Erabot Singh, aged about 82 years, S/o (Late)
Y. Angangyaima Singh of Khurai Ahongei, P.O. Imphal & P.S.
Porompat, District- Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
3. Shri Rajkumar Priyobarta Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o R.K.
Maipaksana Singh of Nongmeibung Wangkheirakpam Leikai,
P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur -
795005.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE AHANTHEMBIMOL SINGH
For the applicant :: Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Advocate;
Mr. S. Chittaranjan, Advocate &
Mrs. L. Ayangleima, Advocate
Date of Hearing :: 29-03-2023
Date of Judgment :: 11-04-2023
JUDGMENT
[1] Heard Mr. H S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. B.R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. Ajoy
Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. S.
Chittaranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and
Mrs. L. Ayangleima, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.
The present application had been filed under Order-VI Rule-16
read with Section 151 of the CPC with the prayer for striking off paragraphs
No. 14 to 17 of the Election Petition No. 1 of 2022 filed by the respondent
No. 1 herein.
Contd.../-
[3]
[2] It has been contended by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior
counsel appearing for the applicant that the pleadings made in paragraphs
No. 14 to 17 of the election petition are liable to be struck off as the same
are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious in nature, which
tends to prejudice, embarrass the applicant. It has also been submitted that
the election petitioner is using the election petition as a tool to advance his
political goals by soiling the clean image of the applicant/ Returned
Candidate and the same is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court in
order to keep himself relevant in the eyes of the voters and to ventilate his
humiliation and heart burnt of being defeated in the hands of the applicant/
Returned Candidate.
[3] The learned senior counsel further submitted that Order-VI
Rule-16 of the CPC, 1908 provides for the court to order that any matter in
any pleadings before it be struck off on the grounds specified under clauses
(a), (b) and (c) and that the very purpose of the Rule is to ensure that parties
to a legal proceeding are entitled ex debito justitiae to have the case against
them presented in an intelligible form so that they may neither be
embarrassed nor lost in meeting the case.
[4] It has also been contended on behalf of the applicant that the
pleadings made in paragraphs No. 14 to 17 of the election petition lacks
material facts constituting the cause of action required under various
provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and does not fulfil the
mandatory requirement of law. The learned counsel submitted that the
election petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts on
which the petitioner relies and therefore does not disclose a triable issue or
Contd.../-
[4]
cause of action and that the so called specific allegations of corrupt practice
as contained in paragraphs No. 14 to 17 does not meet out the basic
requirements, which could constitute corrupt practice or a cause of action
as required by law. It has also been contended that the material facts as to
how the information came to the knowledge of the election petitioner
pertaining to various incidences, as mentioned in the referred paragraphs,
is absolutely missing, whereas the same is preliminary requirement for
maintainability of the election petition. The learned senior counsel
contended that even the material particulars are absent in the election
petition and thus it suffers from non-compliance of the provisions contained
under Section 81 and 83 of the RP Act, 1951.
[5] It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the
averments made in the election petition are completely vague and lacking
in material particulars and as such, no trial or enquiry is permissible on the
basis of such vague, indefinite, imprecise averments and that the
non-disclosure of the cause of action, material facts and violation of Section
81 and 83 of the RP Act, 1951 and Rule-94 A of the Conduct of Election
Rules, 1961 makes paragraphs No. 14 to 17 of the election petition
unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and the same tends to cause
prejudice and embarrassment to the respondent No. 1 and accordingly, the
said paragraphs No. 14 to 17 deserves to be strike off in the interest of
justice.
[6] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 1 submitted that the election petition had been filed in the context of the
gross misrepresentation and concealment of facts, documents, assets,
Contd.../-
[5]
liabilities and holdings by the applicant in filing Form-26 affidavit along with
his nomination papers in the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election
held in the month of February and March, 2022 and that the actions and
omissions of the applicant as detailed in the election petition are sufficient
to constitute a case for setting aside the election of the applicant in
terms of Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act,
1951) being violative of Section 33 and 33A of the RP Act, 1951 read with
Rule-4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 as well as instructions/
informations issued by the Election Commission of India under Article
324 of the Constitution of India and being writ large with instances of
corrupt practice as defined under Section 123 of the RP Act, 1951.
[7] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel submitted that the respondent
No. 1/ election petitioner disclosed all relevant and material facts in the
connected election petition and the details of specific violation of law as well
as commission of corrupt practice have been made and the pleadings in
the election petition have been made in due compliance of the provisions
of Section 83 of the RP Act, 1951 and the question as to whether the
pleadings made in the election petition are sufficient or not can only be
determined at the time of final hearing of the election petition. It has also
been submitted that the allegations made in the election petition are in
connection with improper acceptance of the nomination of the applicant and
non-compliance with the statutory provisions and that the allegations
regarding corrupt practice under Section 123 of the RP Act, 1951 is related
with the concealment of material information in Form-26 affidavit of the
applicant which amounts to undue influence.
Contd.../-
[6]
[8] The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submitted
that the applicant has knowledge of the dispute in Bank loan, loan taken by
his spouse, Bank Account opened in the name of himself, his spouse, his
dependent, Government due/ liability, etc. and that a legal duty is cast upon
the applicant to disclose the details of all the material information of himself,
his spouse and his dependant in his affidavit in Form-26, but for reason best
known to him, the applicant failed to disclose such information and such
non-disclosure of the material information amounts to violation of the
provisions of the RP Act, 1951 and rules made thereunder and hence, his
election is fit to be declared as null and void as provided under Section 100
of the RP Act, 1951. The learned counsel strenuously submitted that all
these material facts and relevant particulars are elaborately and precisely
pleaded in his election petition, more particularly in paragraphs No. 14 to
17, which the applicant is seeking for striking off in the present application
and that if the pleadings in the said paragraphs are struck out, then, the
election petition will have no stand for claiming the reliefs sought for therein.
It has also been submitted that the present application does not even
disclose the basic grounds and ingredients of that of the tenets of Order-VI
Rule-16 of the CPC and the present application is devoid of merit and the
same had been filed with malafide intention of delaying the proceedings of
the election petition and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed with
heavy cost
[9] Mr. S. Chittaranjan and Mrs. L. Ayangleima, learned counsels
appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 endorsed the submission made
by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.
Contd.../-
[7]
[10] I have heard the rival arguments of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties at length and have also carefully examined the materials
available on record. The object and purpose of the pleading is to ensure
that the litigants came to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent
cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is
also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to
be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the
relevant evidence appropriate to the issue before the court for its
consideration. Since the object and purpose is to enable the opposite party
to know the case he has to meet with, all pleadings must be pleaded in
support of the case set up by the petitioner. In the absence of pleadings, a
party would not be allowed to lead evidence and failure to state even a
single material fact will entail dismissal of the suit or petition. Particulars, on
the other hand, are the details of the case which is in the nature of evidence,
a party would be leading at the time of trial. On the other hand, the object
of framing issues is to identify from the pleadings the question or points
required to be decided by the courts so as to enable the parties to led
evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim,
or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot
focus the attention of the parties or its attention on that claim or grant relief
by framing appropriate issues. Thus, it is said that no amount of evidence,
on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant
any relief.
[11] In the present case, the election petition had been filed in the
context of the gross misrepresentation and the concealment of facts,
Contd.../-
[8]
documents, assets, liabilities and holdings by the applicant at the time
of filing his affidavit in Form-26 along with his nomination papers in
connection with the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election. On careful
perusal of the averments made in the election petition, more particularly the
averments made in paragraphs No. 14 to 17, this Court find that the election
petitioner, respondent No.1 herein, elaborately and concisely pleaded all
the material facts and set forth full particulars of all the actions and
omissions of the applicant which are sufficient to constitute the case for
claiming to set aside the election of the applicant in terms of the relevant
provisions of the RP Act, 1951. In fact, the averments made in paragaphs
No. 14 to 17 of the election petition are primary facts for claiming the reliefs
sought for in the election petition and in my considered view, if the
averments made in the said paragraphs No. 14 to 17 are struck out as
prayed for by the applicant in the present application, the election petition
cannot stand on the basis of the remaining averments.
[12] It will be also pertinent to mention here that the applicant, who is
the respondent No 1 in the election petition, had already filed his written
statement and in the said written statement the applicant did not make even
a whisper about the averments made in the said paragraphs No. 14 to 17
as being unnecessarily, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, tend to prejudice,
embarrass or an abuse of the process of the court. In the said written
statement, the applicant generally denied some of the averments made in
the said paragraphs, admit some of the averments and made statement
that some of the averments are subject to trial. In view of the averments
made by the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the claim of the
Contd.../-
[9]
applicant made in the present application as this court is of the considered
view that the applicant has failed to satisfy this Court that the averments
made in paragraphs No. 14 to 17 of the election petition are either
unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, or that they are such as
may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the election
petition, or that the averments are such as to constitute an abuse of the
process of the court as contemplated under the provisions of Order-VI Rule-
16 of the CPC.
In the result, the application is hereby dismissed as being devoid
of merit. Parties are to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
Contd.../-
