LexSHEIKH NOORUL HASSAN versus NAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 6 S.C.R. 53 : 2024 INSC 391 Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1389 of 2024) 08 May 2024 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the permissibility of filing of subsequent pleading- replication as envisaged in Ord. VIII r. 9 CPC, during the course of the proceeding of an election petition under the 1951 Act, and in what circumstances leave to file such subsequent pleading may be granted by an election tribunal/court. Headnotes Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 – s. 87(1) – Procedure before the High Court – Filing of replication by the election petitioner to the written statement filed by the returned candidate – Grant of leave by the High Court – When: Held: As per s. 87(1), the High Court, acting as an Election Tribunal, is vested with all such powers as are vested in a civil court under the CPC and as such in exercise of its powers u/ Ord. VIII r. 9 CPC, is empowered to grant leave to an election petitioner to file a replication – However, such leave is not to be granted mechanically, the averments made in the plaint/election petition, the written statement and the replication to be considered – Upon consideration thereof, the Court may grant leave to explain/clarify the facts newly raised or pleaded in the written statement – Furthermore, while considering grant of leave, the Court must bear in mind that replication is not needed to merely traverse facts pleaded in the written statement, replication is not a substitute for an amendment; and a new cause of action or plea inconsistent with the plea taken in original petition/plaint is not to be permitted in the replication – On facts, the material facts alleged in the election petition were that while filing nomination papers the returned candidate failed to disclose details of some of his bank accounts, ownership of a motor vehicle, details of his spouse’s profession/occupation, the investment made and the details of his 54 [2024] 6 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports liability – Replication only sought to meet the explanation given by the returned candidate in his writtem statement – Replication did not seek to incorporate any new material facts or a new cause of action to question the election – It only sought to explain the averments made in the written statement – Thus, order of the High Court granting leave to the election petitioner to file a replication in answer to the new facts asserted in the written statement filed by the returned candidate justified and well within the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court. [Paras 20-25] Case Law Cited Anant Construction (P) Ltd. v. Ram Niwas 1994 (31) DRJ 205 : 1994 SCC OnLine Del 615; Bachhaj Nagar v. Nilima Mandal and Anr. [2008] 14 SCR 621 : (2008) 17 SCC 491; K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and Ors. [2008] 16 SCR 1117 : (2009) 1 SCC 354; Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi [1999] Supp. 4 SCR 33 : (1999) 9 SCC 386; F.A. Sapa and others v. Singora and others [1991] 2 SCR 752 : (1991) 3 SCC 375; Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh [2005] Supp. 5 SCR 817 : (2005) 13 SCC 511 – referred to. List of Acts Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Election petition; Subsequent pleading; Replication; Grant of leave; Written statement; Facts newly raised or pleaded; Substitute for an amendment; Cause of action; Returned candidate. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1389 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2023 of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in MC(El. Pet.) No. 119 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Rakesh Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., David Ahongsangbam, S Gunabanta Meitei, B R Sharma, Raj Singh, Mohan Singh, Sanajaoba Pheiroijam, Ms. Rajkumari Banju, Advs. for the Respondents. [2024] 6 S.C.R. 55 Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Manoj Misra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal1 dated 14.03.2023, whereby leave has been granted to the election petitioner (the first respondent herein) to file a replication in answer to the new facts asserted in the written statement filed by the returned candidate (the appellant herein). Factual Matrix 2. The first respondent filed an e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.