New material facts cannot be introduced in an election petition after the statutory period, preserving the integrity of established legal proceedings.

JUDGEMNT :

A.Guneshwar Sharma, J.

1. By the instant application, under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 148 of the same Code, the applicant/election petitioner is praying for leave for filling Replication in the Election Petition No.29 of 2022.

2. Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for the applicant/election petiitoner and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Savitri, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/returned candidate.

3. In the application it is stated that respondent No.1 has filed written statement to the Election Petition No.29 of 2022 and after perusal of the contentions made in the written statement, it has been noticed that certain plea has been taken by Respondent No.1 for establishing his contentions and for negating the case set up by the Applicant/Election Petitioner and the same need to be replied and clarified by way of filing subsequent pleading for determining the issues in the Election Petition No.29 of 2022.

4. Respondent No.1 filed written objection to the instant application. The provision under which the present application is filed is not applicable and as such, the application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that if the application is allowed, it may amount to introducing new facts and the same is not permissible by law.

5. In support of his argument, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decisions of Rajasthan High Court in the case of (1) Gurjant Singh Vs Krishan Chander & Ors: (2000) AIHC 3848, (2) Kalyan Mal Mina Vs Ratan Lal Tambi : (1981) AIR (Raj) 249 to emphasise the point that the provisions of CPC including the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 will be applicable in an election petition in terms of provisions of Section 87 of RP Act.

6. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the respondent also placed his reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Thangjam Mohendro Singh Vs Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh in MC (E.P.) No.23 of 2017 Ref: Election Petition 3 of 2017 [Judgment Dated 05.07.2019]. Referring to various case laws of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that the application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. In the guise of filing subsequent pleading, incorporation of new plea cannot be introduced so as to change the nature of the case.

7. Learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to the proposed replication/subsequent pleading of the election petitioner specially the contents of para 5 to 9 where the petitioner has disputed the settled fact of adoption in earlier judicial proceeding for the first time in the replication. It is pointed such a plea has been mentioned in the election petition. This amounts to amendment of the election petition by introducing new plea of disputing the adoption of the returned candidate. The election result of the returned candidate was declared on 10.03.2022 and the replication was filed on 25.11.2022, ie, after 200 days of the declaration of the result. It is submitted that such as application is barred by combined reading of the provisions of Sections 87 , 81 and 83 of RP Act and Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. Any amendment of election petition beyond 45 days is not permissible that too introducing new material facts. It is reiterated that the application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC is nothing but an application under Order 6 Rule 17. It is prayed that the application be rejected with heavy cost.

8. It is the settled principle of law that new plea to change the nature of the case cannot be introduced by way of amendment or in form of subs