THANGJAM MOHENDRO SINGH Vs. THOKCHOM LOKESHWAR SINGH
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Thangjam Mohendro Singh
Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner has filed the present application seeking leave of this Court to file replication in reply to the written
statement of the respondent filed in the main petition alleging that
he had perused the written statement filed by the respondent in
the main Election Petition and has found false allegations in it,
which, if not denied and/or clarified, shall cause prejudice to him.
Hence, he seeks leave of this Court to file the replication.
(2.) Resisting the petition, the respondent filed objection stating that the petitioner had filed the Election Petition on
19.04.2017, which is after 39 days from the date of election. It is stated that the petitioner under the guise of his subsequent
pIeading/replication is trying to amend his Election Petition in order
to bring on record new pleadings and raise new grounds of
challenge which were not raised in the Election Petition. If the
prayer of the petitioner is allowed, it will amount to allowing him to
change his pleading and raising new ground of challenge in
contravention of the provisions of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the written statement, the respondent had stated certain false
allegations and if the same were not contravened and/or clarified,
it would cause prejudice to petitioner. He would submit that if the
application is allowed granting leave to the petitioner to file the
replication, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and
on the other hand, if leave is not granted, the petitioner would be
put to great hardship and inconvenience. In support, the learned
counsel relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Kalyan Mal Mina v. Ratan Lal Tamb, reported in AIR 1981 Raj. 249.
(ii)Sunil and Vasanth Architects and consulting Engineers and another v. Tata Ceramics Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 Kerala 88.
(iii) State of Rajasthan and another v. Mohammed Ikbal and others, reported in AIR 1999 Raj. 169.
(iv)Ghanshyam v. Vikram and others, reported in AIR 2007 P and H 14.
(v)Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal and another, reported in AIR 2009 Raj. 87. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.