THANGJAM MOHENDRO SINGH Vs. THOKCHOM LOKESHWAR SINGH
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-7-8
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on
July 05,2019
Thangjam Mohendro Singh
Appellant
VERSUS
Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL VS. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]GHANSHYAM VS. VIKRAM AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
N P PONNUSWAMI THE UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT VS. RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST :RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST [REFERRED TO]
N P PONNUSWAMI THE UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT VS. RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST :RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BASU VS. DEBI GHOSAL [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BASU VS. DEBI GHOSAL [REFERRED TO]
DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL VS. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KISHORE JHA VS. MAHAVIR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
JEET MOHINDER SINGH VS. HARMINDER SINGH JASSI [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL AND VASANTH ARCHITECTS AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS VS. TATA CERAMICS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN MAL MINA VS. RATAN LAL TAMBI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MOHAMMAD IKBAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. CHANDU LAL [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
M.V.MURALIDARAN,J. -
(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.
(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.