Manipur High Court
Yumkham Erabot Singh vs Thangjam Arunkumar & Ors on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
IN. 8
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.06.03 10:34:59
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022
Yumkham Erabot Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
Thangjam Arunkumar & ors. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
30-05-2025
Mr. S. Chittaranjan, learned counsel appeared for the
petitioner; Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Gunabanta, learned counsel appeared for the respondent No. 1 and
Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appeared for the respondent No. 2.
In this election petition, the appointed Advocate Commissioner
submitted a report dated 16-05-2025 before this court wherein in para 1
of the said report, it is reported that on 22-05-2025, when the said matter
was put up before the appointed Advocate Commissioner for taking
evidence and recording of the statement of the PWs in connection with
the El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022, the learned counsel appearing for the
election petitioner submitted before the Advocate Commissioner that the
petitioner is not willing to produce and examine any witnesses on his
behalf in connection with the said election petition. As the petitioner has
refused to produce any witnesses or adduce evidence in connection with
the election petition, the appointed Advocate Commissioner submitted a
report before this court for passing appropriate order. Subsequently, the
counsel appearing for the election petitioner also filed an affidavit stating,
inter alia, that despite his best efforts requesting the election petitioner
to proceed with the election petition by producing witnesses and taking
El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022 Contd.../-
- 2-
evidences, the election petitioner told him about his inability to produce
the witnesses and that the election petitioner has no more interest to
prosecute his case and that the petitioner is not willing to produce and
examine the witnesses on his behalf. It has also been further submitted
that the petitioner also instructed the Advocate not to pursue with the
election petition any further. Thereafter, the petitioner refused to contact
the learned counsel.
Taking into consideration the unfolding subsequent events, the
learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner submitted that he is
unable to prosecute the election petition any further because of the
non-cooperation on the part of the election petitioner and the learned
counsel submitted for passing any appropriate order.
Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1 pointed out that in the RP Act of 1951, there is
provision for withdrawing of the election petition by following the
procedure mention therein, however, there is no provision for closing the
election petition as being not pressed. The learned senior counsel finally
submitted that any appropriate order as deem fit and proper may be
passed by this court taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
In the judgment & order passed by the Gauhati High Court,
Imphal Bench in the case of "V. Weapon Zimik Vs. M. Horam & ors."
reported in 1999 (2) GLT 506, the election petition was dismissed for
non-prosecution when the election petitioner refused to pursue this
election petition. The relevant portion of the judgment are as under:-
"9. The sole question posed before this Court for determination is
that, whether the election petition can be dismissed by invoking
the power under Order IX and Order XVII of the Code of Civil
Procedure for non-prosecution, in absence of any specific
provision for the purpose under the Act."
El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022 Contd.../-
- 3-
"10. There is no distinct provision under the Act laying down
procedure to be followed when Petitioner commits default either
in appearance or in production of evidence or prosecuting the
petition. On the other hand, elaborate procedure has been laid
Under Section 109 and 110 of the Act in the case the Petitioner
chooses to file an application for withdrawal of the petition."
"11. The full bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jugal
Kishore s/o Lal Chand, Petitioner v. Doctor Baldev Prakash
Respondent AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 37, had held that the
provision of Code of Civil Procedure as visualised Under Section
87 of the Act would be applicable and the election petition can be
dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX and Order XVII."
"12. In Sundarlal Mannalal, Petitioner v. Nandaramdas Dwarka Das
and Ors. Respondents AIR 1958 Madhya Pradesh 260, the
Division Bench had held the same view. M. Hidayatullah C.J. (as
his Lordship then was) speaking for the court observed;
The Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is
axiomatic that no Court or tribunal is supposed to continue
a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it
has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The
dismissal, therefore, is under an inherent power which
every tribunal possesses. No express provision in the Act
was necessary to empower the court to make the order of
dismissal in default."
"13. This Court in K. Vungzalian, Petitioner v. J.F. Rathangliana and Ors.
Respondents AIR 1988 Gauhati 307 held the same view. I am in
respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions,
because of the reasons which I shall be dealing presently."
"14. Section 83 of the Act deals with the contents of election petition, and
states;
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) shall be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the manner laid
down in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908) for the
verification of pleadings:
"15. Section 87 of the Act deals with the procedure before the High Court
and it enjoins that election shall be tried by the High Court as nearly
as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the
Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of suits."
"16. A fascicule reading of Sections 83 and 87 of the Act, would make it
amply clear that although no distinct provision for dismissal of the
election petition in default has not been provided, since the
procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure has to be followed
El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022 Contd.../-
before the High Court, the election petition could well be dismissed
under Order IX and Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure This
apart, the High Court being a court of records, it has an inherent
power to determine its own jurisdiction and procedure to be
followed."
"17. Section 86 of the Act, deals with the trial of election petition, Section
86(7) provides that, "Every election petition shall be tried as
expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude
the trial within six months from the date on which the election
petition is presented to the High Court for trial. It is, therefore, not
the intention of the legislature to keep the election petition alive even
if the Petitioner commits default in appearance or in production of
witnesses. The generic sense that, the litigation must come to an
end, is based on sound public policy, so that opposite parties are
not vexed for more than necessary. It is a common knowledge that
election petition could not be tried as expeditiously as possible and
cannot be concluded within six months from the date of election
petition as visualises under the Act. Unless the election Petitioner
pursued his case diligently and actively by producing witnesses
cited by him and by appearing in the court as and when fixed, and
by contacting his counsel and render necessary instructions. This
apart, the laches and negligence of the election Petitioner in
pursuing his election petition exposed the merit of his election
petition. In the instant case, the election Petitioner even disowned
his own statement by refusing to sign his statement made in cross
examination by counsel for the Respondent No. 7, apart from non-
appearance and non-production of the material witnesses cited by
him. I am told that the next general election in the State of Manipur
is due some time in December, 1999."
"18. In the facts and circumstances recited above, I have no alternative
but to dismiss this election petition for non-prosecution under Order
IX and Order XVII Code of Civil Procedure."
Taking into consideration the refusal by the election petitioner
to pursue his election petition and his inability or refusal to produce any
witnesses or to adduce any evidence in connection with the present
election petition, this court is of the considered view that no purpose will
be served by continuing with the process of the present election petition
and it will be a futile exercise. This court cannot also lose sight of fact
that another election petition being El. Petn. No. 1 of 2022 is also
pending challenging the election of the respondent No. 1 herein and as
such, this court is of the considered view that no purpose will be served
El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022 Contd.../-
-5 -
by proceeding with the present election petition especially when the
petitioner is not interested in pursuing with the present election petition.
Keeping in view the above facts, this court has no alternative
but to dismiss this election petition for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the
present election petition is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution.
JUDGE
Devananda
El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022 Contd.../-
IN. 9, 10, 12, 14 & 15
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.06.03 10:35:29
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Okram Henry Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
Thangjam Arunkumar & ors. ... Respondents
With
El. Recr. Petn. No. 1 of 2022;
MC(El. Petn.) No. 171 of 2022;
MC(El. Petn.) No. 46 of 2023 &
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
30-05-2025
As prayed for by the counsel appearing for the parties, list
these cases again on 09-06-2025 for further proceedings.
JUDGE
Devananda
El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022 Contd.../-
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
IN. 11
DEVANANDA SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.06.03 10:35:48 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
(Ref:- El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022)
Thangjam Arunkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
Yumkham Erabot Singh & ors. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
30-05-2025
Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.
Gunabanta, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner; Mr. S.
Chittaranjan, learned counsel appeared for the respondent No. 1 and
Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appeared for the respondent No. 2.
It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner that as the connected election petition being El. Petn.
No. 24 of 2022 has already been dismissed for non-prosecution, the
present election recrimination petition may be closed.
Recording the submission made by the learned senior
counsel, the present election recrimination petition is hereby closed.
JUDGE
Devananda
El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022 Contd.../-
IN. 13
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.06.03 10:36:04
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
(Ref:- El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022)
Thangjam Arunkumar ... Applicant
Vs.
Yumkham Erabot Singh & ors. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
30-05-2025
In view of the order passed today in the connected election
petition, the present application stands closed.
JUDGE
Devananda
El. Petn. No. 24 of 2022 Contd.../-
