Decided on April 27,2019

Ningthoujam Mangi Appellant
Sanasam Bira Singh Respondents


KH.NOBIN SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard Shri A. Mohendro, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/petitioner and Shri B.R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
(2.) This is an application filed by the applicant/ petitioner under order VIII Rule 9 CPC read with Section 87(1) of the RP Act, 1951 praying for grant of leave to file the subsequent pleading / rejoinder/ replication in answering to new facts as stated in written statement of the respondent No.1 on the ground that there were certain facts and allegations made by the respondent No.1 in his written statement. According to the applicant/ petitioner, unless the leave is granted by this court, the applicant/ petitioner will suffer injury, while no injury will be caused to the respondent No.1 by granting it. But it is nowhere stated in the application as to what are those new facts alleged to have been stated in the written statement.
(3.) A written objection to the said application, has been filed by the respondent No.1, the relevant paragraph of which reads as: "3. The present answering respondent raise objection to the filing of the replication/ subsequent pleading on the following grounds:- (i) The answering respondent in his written statement had only answered/ replied to the contents of the election petition and did not bring in any new facts and as such there is no requirement of filing the replication / subsequent pleadings by the election petitioner; (ii) The replication/ subsequent pleadings sought to be filed by the election petitioner contains new facts and if allowed would amount to allowing the amendment of the election petition which should not be allowed after the limitation i.e. within 45 days from the election of the returned candidates u/s 81 of the R.P. Act 1951. The election petitioner is trying to bring-in more cause of action which cannot be allowed after the said limitation. (iii) The election petitioner has sought to file many documents through the filing of the replication which cannot be allowed."? In his written objection also, the respondent No.1 has not specified the new facts alleged to have been stated by the applicant/ petitioner in the replication. ;

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