LANGPOKLAKPAM JAYANTAKUMAR SINGH Vs. LAISHOM IBOMCHA SINGH
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-4-23
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on April 25,2019

Langpoklakpam Jayantakumar Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Laishom Ibomcha Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KH.NOBIN SINGH,J. - (1.) This is an application filed by the applicant/ respondent No.1 under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 81, 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1951"?) praying for striking out the pleadings in the so-called replication of the respondent No.1/ petitioner as are inconsistent or at variance with his original pleas in the election petition and for rejection of the election as the pleadings in the election does not make out any cause of action or triable issues and the trial would prejudice, embarrass and delay the proceedings of the election petition.
(2.) The grounds on the basis of which the instant application has been filed by the applicant/ respondent No.1, read as under: "4. That the Petitioner filed his so-called Replication belatedly on 23.01.2018. In the said Replication, the Petitioner has brought in many new facts and grounds in the so-called Replication of the Petitioner as are inconsistent or at variance with his original pleas in Election Petition for the first time. The Applicant humbly submits that material facts/grounds and particulars must be furnished wherever necessary in the Election Petition itself and cannot be set out for the first time in the so-called Replication filed much after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing Election Petition. The material facts/grounds and particulars alleged for the first time in the so-called Replication and not forming part of the original averments made in the Election Petition cannot be tried and cannot be made the subject-matter of issues framed or to be framed, as the case may be, by the Hon'ble Court. Moreover, the said Replication in not accompanied by an Affidavit in prescribed form in support of the allegations of corrupt practice and accordingly, such pleadings based on new facts and new set of ideas as contained in the so-called Replication of the Petitioner deserves out-right rejection. 5. That the Applicant humbly and respectfully submits that the Election Petition does not at all disclose or make out any cause of action or triable issues and that the trial would prejudice, embarrass, and delay the proceedings besides wasting the valuable time of this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, the Election Petition deserves to be rejected with exemplenary costs.
(3.) The prayer in the application reads as under: P R A Y E R The Applicant herein, humbly and earnestly prays that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to strike out the pleadings in the so-called Replication of the Petitioner which are inconsistent or at variance with his original pleas in Election Petition and to dismiss the Election Petition as not disclosing any cause of action or triable issues and as an abuse of the process of the Hon'ble Court with exemplenary costs, - for the ends of justice. And the Applicant, as in duty bound, shall ever pray."? ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.