LANGPOKLAKPAM JAYANTAKUMAR SINGH Vs. LAISHOM IBOMCHA SINGH
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-2-5
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on February 05,2019

Langpoklakpam Jayantakumar Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Laishom Ibomcha Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Nobin Singh - (1.) Heard Shri A. Bimol, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S. Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/ Respondent No. 1 and Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1/petitioner. This is an application filed by the applicant/ Respondent No.1 under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC and Section 87 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1951") praying for grant of leave to allow him to file a subsequent pleadings/ surrejoinder in answer to the replication filed by the Respondent No.1/ petitioner. The ground on which the instant application has been filed is that while going through the replication filed by the Respondent No.1/ petitioner, new facts are found to have been mentioned therein and the same are required to be controverted or clarified by him in the form of a subsequent pleadings/ sur rejoinder in answer to the replication of the Respondent No. 1/ petitioner and in the event of the permission of leave not being granted, the allegations made in the replication shall cause prejudice to the applicant/ Respondent No. 1.
(2.) An objection has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1/petitioner stating that since the application has been filed only on 03.10.2018 after about 10 (ten) months from the date of filing the replication, the same is barred by delay and laches and that the application being MC(WP(C)) No. 8 of 2018 wherein prayer has been made to strike out the pleadings in the replication on the ground that new material particulars have been pleaded therein, is still pending for consideration by this court. The instant application cannot be entertained on the ground of constructive res judicata for the reason that the other aforesaid application is still pending and moreover, the applicant/ Respondent No. 1 cannot take two stances in respect of one and the same cause of action. The fact that the instant application has been filed as an afterthought to achieve something which the applicant/ Respondent No.1 failed to obtain in the earlier application. The election petition being completely different from the writ petition, the occasion of filing sur rejoinder does not arise in the election petition and the material particulars made by the Respondent No. 1/ petitioner in his replication are by way of response to the facts given in the written statement filed by the applicant/Respondent No.1. Moreover, the present application has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings of the election petition as the applicant/ Respondent No.1 does not want to face the trial.
(3.) The short question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether new facts have been pleaded by the respondent No.1/ petitioner in the replication and in order to decide the issue, it becomes necessary for this court to examine the averments made in the election petition and the replication. The election petition was filed by the respondent No.1/ petitioner challenging the election of the applicant / respondent No.1 on the grounds that the nomination paper of the application / respondent No.1 has been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and that the applicant/ respondent No.1 has made false statement in his affidavit to the effect that he has no Government dues except in respect of motor vehicle advance. The materials facts made in the election petition as required under Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, are that firstly, the applicant/ respondent No.1 has failed to open a bank account at least one day prior to the date of filing the nomination for the reason that on the day nomination, the scrutiny of the applicant/ respondent No.1's nomination paper was deferred for some time and when his nomination was again considered, one of his agents brought a pass book of an account opened that day only. When the objection was raised by the agents of the respondent No.1/ petitioner with respect to the nomination of the applicant/ respondent No.1, the matter was referred to the Election Observer or Expenditure Observer but without waiting their views, the Returning Officer accepted illegally the nomination of the Applicant/ Respondent No.1. The turmoil that took place during the course of scrutiny came to be published in the newspaper "Huyen Lanpao" on the next day. Further, secondly, the applicant/ respondent No.1 has filed a false affidavit by concealing his Government dues in respect of his landed property at Keirao Bitra under Patta No.54/410 of village No.54 -Wangkhem which the respondent No.1/ petitioner came to know from the demand letter dated 20.4.2017 of the SDC, Keirao Mitra. Thirdly, on 07.04.2017 the applicant/ respondent No.1 submitted his statement of account supported by an affidavit but it did not show the expenditure for three days from the date of nomination ie. 13.02.2017 to 15.02.2017, although he deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the treasury under TRS No.453507 dated 13.02.2017 without the same being shown in the statement of account.;


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