Manipur High Court
Shri Thangjam Arunkumar vs Shri Yumkham Erabot Singh on 11 April, 2023
SHOUGRA Digitally
by
signed [1]
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH
Date: 2023.04.11
DA SINGH 15:47:26 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(El. Petn.) No. 137 of 2022
(Ref:- El. Petn. No. 24 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 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.
... Principal Respondent
2. 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.
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. 24 of 2022
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.
.... 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 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.
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. S.
Chittaranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Ajoy
Pebam, 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. 4.4, 4.8, 4.9, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17 and 7 of the Election Petition No. 24 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. 4.4, 4.8, 4.9, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17 and 7 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 out 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. 4.4, 4.8, 4.9, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17 and 7 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
Contd.../-
[4]
not disclose a triable issue or cause of action and that the so called specific
allegations of corrupt practice as contained in paragraphs No. 4.4, 4.8, 4.9,
4.15, 4.16, 4.17 and 7 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. 4.4, 4.8, 4.9, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17 and 7 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 deserves to be strike off in the
interest of justice.
[6] Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 1 submitted that the election petition had been filed in the context of the
Contd.../-
[5]
gross misrepresentation and concealment of facts, documents, assets,
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. S. Chittaranjan, 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
Contd.../-
[6]
with the concealment of material information in Form-26 affidavit of the
applicant which amounts to undue influence.
[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. 4.4, 4.8,
4.9, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17 and 7 which the applicant is seeking for striking out 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
Contd.../-
[7]
[9] Mr. Ajoy Pebam 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.
[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 cannot 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,
Contd.../-
[8]
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,
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. 4.4, 4.8, 4.9, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17 and 7,
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 paragraphs No. 4.4, 4.8, 4.9, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17 and 7 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 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 as being
unnecessarily, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, tend to prejudice,
Contd.../-
[9]
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 and admit some of the averments. On careful
consideration of the pleadings made in the election petition, this Court is
not inclined to entertain the claim of the 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. 4.4,
4.8, 4.9, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17 and 7 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.../-
