Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 71
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
El. Pet. No. 2 of 2023
Date of Decision :02.04.2026
Shri Titosstar Well Chyne, S/o (L) R. Diantonath Khyllep, aged about 55 years, R/o Khlieh Shnong, Sohra, Opposite R.K.M. Mission Higher Secondary School, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793111.
… Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Shri Gavin Miguel Mylliem, S/o Shri Winston Mark Simon Pariat, aged about 31 years, R/o House No. 171, Umthli Village, Umthli, Pynursla, S.O. East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793110.
2. Shri Alan West Kharkongor, S/o Priska Kharkongor, aged about 49 years, R/o Maraikaphon, Sohra, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793108
3. Shri Harold Firming Khongsit, S/o (L) Bendromuney Songs Nongpluh, aged 60 years, R/o Diengsong, Sohra, P.O. Sohra P.S. Sohra, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793108.
4. Smt. Lakyntiew Sohkhlet, W/o Shri George Peter Lawbor, aged 35 years, R/o Maraikaphon, Shora Village, P.O. & P.S. Sohra East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793108
5. Shri Michael Ronnie Kshiar, S/o Shri Willingdone Bareh aged 50 years, R/o 85-Nongshiliang, South & Lower Nongthymmai, Shillong East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793014
6. Smt. G. Phaiyolin Nongrum, W/o Greatson Swer, aged a 60 years R/o Laitryngew Village, C/o Advocate Phila K. Nongrum, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793108
… Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Jotendra Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. A. Kharshiing, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.S. Pandey, Adv. with Mr. A.M. Pala, Adv. Ms. K.C.H. Nongrum, Adv.
JUDGE
Meghalaya 02.04.2026
“V. Lyndem- PS”
DVDAi a g tLi e tEa : lN2 ly 0T s 2INi 6 gO. n 0 e 4L Y 0 b 2Ny D1 8E:M16:16 IST
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. By way of MC (EP) No. 19 of 2023 in the present Election Petition, the respondent had preferred an application under Section 86 of Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Gauhati High Court Rules, (as adopted by the High Court of Meghalaya). The grounds taken were that the Election petition is ex-facie barred by Section 86 of the Act being filed in violation of Sections 81, 82 & 83 of the said Act. This Court then by order dated 31.10.2023, disposed of the said Misc. Case by holding that as it could not be conclusively ascertained whether the election petitioner was present or not at the time of presentation, the issue raised by the respondent needed to be taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration by the adducing of evidence. Thereafter, this Court by order dated 21.02.2024, after suggested issues had been filed by the parties, framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Election Petition was presented as per Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rule-1 to Chapter VIII A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, as adopted by the High Court of Meghalaya.
2. Whether the Stamp Reporter followed the Note II of Rule 1 to Chapter VIII A as adopted by the High Court of Meghalaya, in accepting the Election Petition.
2. The election petitioner and two witnesses on his behalf, then filed their Examination-in-Chief by way of affidavits on 20.05.2024. In the intervening period however, before the Cross-Examination could be conducted, the respondent filed an application being MC (EP) No. 4 of 2024 under Section 379 of the BNSS 2023, wherein the respondent No. 1, raised allegations of the election petitioner furnishing a false affidavit for the purpose of being used in a judicial proceeding. This was then followed by an application being MC (EP) No. 8 of 2024 by the election petitioner, seeking replacement of his statement (Examination-in-Chief) on affidavit filed on 20.05.2024, by another statement (Examination-in-Chief) on affidavit. This Court then by order dated 28.11.2024, after hearing the parties observed that the earlier statement having been made on oath and the same being vital to the proceedings of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the prayer of the election petitioner for replacement of the affidavit was rejected. Paragraphs 15 & 16 of the order dated 28.11.2024 being relevant are reproduced hereinbelow: -
“15. In the backdrop of this legal position, in considering the facts of this case, what can clearly be seen is that the redaction or recall of that part of the Evidence on Affidavit which has been sought for by the election petitioner is with regard to a statement that has been made on oath as to the date of the presentation of the Election Petition, which is in variance with the statements made in the body of the Election Petition. It is not a case where the statement made is of no relevance, or that the recall sought is of documents that are yet to be proved, but is a statement which touches the core issue in dispute. The Courts in such situations can well exercise discretionary powers to allow redaction or replacement or deletion, if the same in its considered view is of not much relevance. As all cases stand on their own peculiar footing or circumstance, a common yardstick in the exercise of this inherent power, is not available and this power necessarily will have to be judiciously exercised taking into consideration all relevant factors. In this particular case, the statement having been made on oath, in the considered view of this Court, the same being vital to the proceedings of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the prayer of the election petitioner for replacement of the affidavit cannot be acceded to and is denied.
16. On the other issue i.e. whether the election petitioner and the other 2 witn
