The court emphasized that the election petition cannot be dismissed at the initial stage by considering the written statement of the respondent, and that sufficient material facts had been pleaded in the election petition to constitute a cause of action.

Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel as well as Mr. A. Bimol, learned senior counsel for the applicant, respondent in the election petition and Mr. N. Mohendro, learned counsel for the election petitioner, respondent in this application.

2. The present application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Section 81(1) and Section 100(1) (d) (i) of the same Act by the respondent in the election petition seeking dismissal of the Election Petition on the ground that there is no triable issue left and the issues raised by the election petitioner had already been decided by the Election Commission of India as well as by the Criminal Court including this High Court on an earlier occasion.

3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. N. Ibotombi on behalf of the applicant submits that the only plea taken by the election petitioner in the election petition in challenging the election of the applicant is that the nomination of the present applicant, the respondent in the election petition, had been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer (RO). It has also been alleged by the election petitioner that in the affidavit filed by the applicant, respondent in the election petition, while giving his highest educational qualification, it has been stated that he had completed Master of Arts in History from Manipur University (MU) in 2003. According to the election petitioner, either the applicant respondent had given a wrong information about his highest educational qualification about having obtained Master of Arts in History from MU in 2003 or had concealed his real identity by using the surname “Thokchom”, though his real surname is “Oinam” as mentioned in the Manipur University records. The aforesaid pleadings have been reflected in para Nos. 5,7,12 and 23 of the election petition.

4. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel submits that this allegation of falsification of his educational qualification and real identity is the only ground raised in the election petition in challenging the election of the applicant and that the RO had wrongly accepted the nomination of the applicant respondent, though he had given wrong information about these. It has been submitted that no other allegations relating to electoral malpractice or any other allegations have been made by the election petitioner. The aforesaid allegation is the only ground taken in the election petition on the basis of which, the petitioner has sought for declaring the election of the respondent (applicant herein) as void and for prosecution of the respondent for giving false information under section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel that these are allegations which had been already raised and decided in favour of the respondent by the Election Commission of India on an earlier occasion, when one N. Singhajit, a candidate in the 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election who was defeated by the present respondent in the said election had filed a complaint before the Election Commission making similar complaint alleging that no person by the name of Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh had obtained a Master of Arts Degree in History from Manipur University in 2003. Further, it was also alleged by him that in the relevant records of electoral roll of Khundrakpam Constituency issued by the Chief Election Officer, Manipur, 2011, the name of the respondent was recorded as “Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh, s/o Th. Navakumar Singh” of Polling Station number 1/9, Sl. No. 373, House No. 102, aged 44 years respectively, though he in reality is “Oinam Lokeshwar Singh, s/o Oinam Khoidumba”.

6. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel states that after the said complaint was lodged before the Election Commission of India against the applicant respondent, the Election Commission of India directed the Returning Officer to hold an e