The right to file subsequent pleadings is permissible under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC to clarify statements made in earlier rejoinders without causing irreparable loss to the other party.

JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, A.C.J.

Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned senior counsel for the first respondent.

2. This miscellaneous case has been filed by the applicant under Order 8, Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 87 (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to grant leave to file written objection subsequent to the rejoinder dated 13.9.2022 filed by the first respondent.

3. Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the first respondent had filed MC (EP) No.54 of 2022 to dismiss the election petition and the applicant had filed his written objection on 29.8.2022 and the first respondent had also filed rejoinder to the said written objection. Upon perusal of the rejoinder filed by the first respondent, the applicant found that there are certain statement made which are required to be further clarified by way of written objection in the manner of subsequent pleadings.

4. The learned senior counsel for the applicant admits that the written objection was filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of delivery of the copy of the rejoinder filed in MC (EP) No.54 of 2022. The said delay was due to the time taken in making inquiries, consultations, preparations and other clerical tasks and also verification of various documents from the concerned departments. Moreover, the applicant was out of station from 7.10.2022 to 12.10.2022. In the aforesaid situation, the applicant took time in preparation and finalisation of the written objection to the rejoinder/replication.

5. The learned senior counsel for the applicant urged that by granting leave the applicant to file subsequent pleadings to the rejoinder/replication shall cause no prejudice to any of the parties in MC (EP) No.54 of 2022 and, on the other hand, if the applicant is not allowed by granting leave to file the subsequent pleadings, the applicant would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. which cannot be compensation in any manner whatsoever. Thus, a prayer has been made to grant leave to file written objection to the rejoinder/replication filed by the first respondent.

6. Per contra, Mr. N. Kumarjit, the learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that under Section 87 (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, every election petition is to be tried by the High Court as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the CPC. He would submit that there is no provision for filing additional written objection for clarification of the statement in the written objection filed earlier. There is also no provision under the Representation of People Act for filing additional written objection. However, there are provisions under the CPC for amendment of the written statement or written objection filed in the proceedings of the election petition. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.

8. In the present miscellaneous case, the applicant is seeking leave to file written objection subsequent to the rejoinder filed by the first respondent.

9. The applicant, who is the original election petitioner, has challenged the election of the first respondent from 33-Heirok Assembly Constituency in Election Petition No.22 of 2022. Pending election petition, the first respondent filed MC (EP) No.54 of 2022 to dismiss the election petition. Resisting MC (EP) No.54 of 2022, the applicant has filed written objection on 29.8.2022 and the first