CASE TITTLE: SHEIKH NOORUL HASSAN V NAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS
CASE NO:CIVIL APPEAL N0. 1389 OF 2024
ORDER ON: May 8, 2024
QUORUM: J.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, J. Manoj Misra
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal dated 14.03.2023,
The fact that led to the appeal in question is that the first respondent filed an election petition seeking a Declaration that the election of the returned candidate, Namely, the appellant herein, is null and void under Section 100(1) (d) (i) (ii) and (iv); and Section 100 (1) (b) of The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. In addition, thereto, A prayer was made to declare the election petitioner as duly Elected from the concerned legislative constituency of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. the election petition, alleged, that The returned candidate had failed to make necessary Disclosures in the nomination paper. In Support of that allegation, particulars of such non-disclosure/ incorrect disclosure were detailed in the election petition. These allegations, however, were not only traversed in the Written statement filed by the returned candidate (i.e. the Appellant herein) but additional facts were also laid out therein. As a result, the election petitioner filed an application seeking leave to file a replication, which came to be allowed by The impugned order of the High Court. Hence this petition
LEGAL ISSUES:
Whether during the course of the proceeding of an Act,subsequent pleading, as envisaged in Order VIII Rule 9CPC, is permissible? If yes, in what circumstances leave to file Such subsequent pleading may be granted by an Election Tribunal/ Court?
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 100 of The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951: high courts power to declare the election as void
- Section 87of the representation of people act 1951: procedure before the High court
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:
The counsel Mr. Shyam Divan appearing for the appellant, submitted That the remedy of an election petition is a statutory Remedy governed by the provisions of the 1951 Act. There is No provision in the 1951 Act for filing a replication in response to a written statement. Hence, there is no foundation in law For the impugned order, the counsel further submitted that the Election petitioner’s replication is barred by the Provisions of section 814 (1) of the 1951 Act as it sets out a time limit of 45 days for filing an election petition. Taking into consideration new allegations introduced through a replication would be tantamount to entertaining a time-barred Petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The counsel Mr. Anupam Lal Das, appearing on behalf of respondent, submitted that, Section 87 of the 1951 Act provides that, An election petition shall be tried by the High Court in Accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A written statement can Be rebutted under Order VIII Rule 97 of the CPC. Therefore, it Is incorrect to state that filing of a replication in the Proceedings of an election petition has no legal basis.therefore the counsel further submitted that No new case has been introduced by way of the Replication. Though, by way of rebuttal of few paragraph in written statement,
Which introduced new facts, by way of Clarification / amplification of earlier pleading, have been Pleaded, which is permissible in law. These include: (a) details
Of bank accounts; (b) details of tax demands/liability; and (c) Ownership of vehicle, which are referred to in the original Petition.hence the counsel submitted that The replication only seeks to rebut the explanation Offered in the written statement in respect of those accounts, Demands and the vehicle.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
Having taken note of the rival submissions, the court Considered the provisions of CPC and observed that, no pleading subsequent to the Written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence To set off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the Leave of the Court.Further The court looked at the provisions of the 1951 Act in respect of addressing disputes regarding elections, subsiquently following judicial decisions were also refered,
- Anant Construction (P) Ltd. V. Ram Niwas
- Bachhaj Nagar v. Nilima Mandal and Anr
- Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and Ors.
- E Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi
- A. Sapa and others v. Singora And others
- Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh
In reference to the above judicial precedents and analysis over the 1951 act, the court is of the view that by Virtue of the provisions of Section 87 (1) of the 1951 Act, the High Court, acting as an Election Tribunal, subject to the Provisions of the 1951 Act and the rules made thereunder, is Vested with all such powers as are vested in a civil court under The CPC. Therefore, the court considered that in exercise of its powers under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, it is empowered to grant leave to an election Petitioner to file a replication.However, such leave is not to be granted mechanically. The Court also opined that before granting leave the averments made in the plaint/election petition, the written statement and The replication must in considered thereof, Further the court observed that, In the instant case, the material facts alleged in the Election petition, inter alia, were that while filing nomination Papers the returned candidate had failed to disclose:
(a) details Of some of his bank accounts
(b)Ownership of a motor vehicle, which stood registered in his Name;
(c) details of his spouse’s profession or occupation;
(d)The investment made by him on the land, by way of development, construction etc.; and
(e) the details of his Liability owed to the Bank
Therefore the court further observed, the statement, that the Bank account did not belong to the returned candidate, his Spouse, or dependents, and that the account was for Social/charitable use wherein the returned candidate had Associated in a fiduciary capacity of a coordinator/facilitator. Further,the court observed that to substantiate the said plea, the details of the 56 Affected poor families were given. the court also observed that the motor vehicle of which disclosure Was not made by the returned candidate had been gifted to one Person in the year 2012, therefore there was no concealment In respect of that vehicle. The court also observed statement of the returned candidate to that since value of immovable property Was disclosed, there was no separate disclosure as regards the Amount spent in the construction of residential house standing Thereupon. Thus, there was no concealment.
Further the court considered that In the application seeking leave to file replication, the election petitioner stated that the returned candidate had, stated new facts of which a reply was required, therefore leave to file a replication was granted. On considering all the facts and circumstances the registration of the vehicle in the name of the Returned candidate was reiterated, and the claim that the Vehicle was gifted in the year 2012 was denied. it was stated that whether the disclosure already made in Respect of profession or occupation of spouse was proper or Not, is for the Court to decide. Similarly, in paragraph 26 it was Stated that the returned candidate was obliged to disclose the Amount invested in the construction of residential house. Hence ,The court made it clear from above that the non-disclosure of bank Accounts, alleged in the election petition, was sought to be Explained by the returned candidate in his written statement. The replication only sought to meet that explanation. Similarly, The reply in the written statement in respect of other material Facts pleaded in the election petition was sought to be dealt With, by way of explanation, in the replication. The replication Does not seek to incorporate any new material facts or a new Cause of action to question the election. It only seeks to explain The averments made in the written statement. Thus, the court opined that, leave to file replication was justified and well within the Discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court.therefore, the court on not finding any merit in this appeal Dismissed off the same.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
judgement reviewed by SOWMYA.R
