JUDGMENT :

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 & H 14.

(v) Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal and another, reported in AIR 2009 Raj. 87.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has filed the present petition with a view to amend his Election Petition in order to bring on record new pleadings and raise new grounds to challenge the result of the election, which are not raised in his Election Petition. He would submit that if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, it would amount to allowing him to change his pleadings and raise new ground of challenge in contravention of the provisions of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

5. The learned counsel then argued that subsequent pleading and replication sought to be filed contains new pleading and the ground of challenge not incorporated in the Election Petition is not permissible inasmuch as it is barred by time as provided under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. To fortify his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1577.

(ii) Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder, reported in (1999) 9 SCC 386.

(iii) Jilu Patnaik v. Sanatan Mohakud, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 194.

6. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the replication sought to be filed by him, no new facts or new pleas have been taken and only the averments made in the Election Petition have been explained.

8. The petitioner filed the Election Petition under Section 80 read with Section 100(1)(d)(i) of Part VI Chapter III of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for declaring that the election of the returned candidate viz., the respondent, to fill the seat in the Manipur Legislative Assemb