Replication in election petitions is permissible to clarify new facts raised in written statements, ensuring fair trial without introducing new causes of action.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal1 dated 14.03.2023, whereby leave has been granted to the election petitioner (the first respondent herein) to file a replication in answer to the new facts asserted in the written statement filed by the returned candidate (the appellant herein).

1 High Court Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2024.05.08 12:54:23 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified Factual Matrix

2. The first respondent filed an election petition seeking a declaration that the election of the returned candidate, namely, the appellant herein, is null and void under: (a) Section 100(1) (d) (i) (ii) and (iv); and (b) Section 100 (1) (b) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 19512. In addition, thereto, a prayer was made to declare the election petitioner as duly elected from the concerned legislative constituency3 of 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly.

3. In the election petition, it was alleged, inter alia, that the returned candidate had failed to make necessary disclosures in the nomination paper/the affidavit (i.e., Form

26) which had a material bearing on the election result. In support of that allegation, particulars of such non-disclosure / incorrect disclosure were detailed in the election petition.

These allegations, however, were not only traversed in the written statement filed by the returned candidate (i.e. the appellant herein) but additional facts were also laid out 2 1951 Act 3 4- Kshetrigao Assembly Constituency.

therein. As a result, the election petitioner filed an application seeking leave to file a replication, which came to be allowed by the impugned order of the High Court.

Impugned Order

4. The High Court vide impugned order allowed the application seeking leave to file subsequent pleading while, inter alia, observing as follows:

“15. The petitioner has filed the election petition, inter alia, on the ground that the first respondent has failed to disclose the details – status of his bank accounts with respective balances in Form 26. The first respondent has also failed to disclose the details of liability and also the car bearing DL4CNB4776 owned by him in Form 26.

16. On a reading of the election petition, it is seen that the petitioner has also taken other grounds. However, in reply to the ground for non-disclosure of the account details, the first respondent replied in his written statement that the said accounts opened for establishment of Self Help Group, namely, Panthoibi SHG, Yaiphabi SHG.

Paragraphs 12 and 17 of the written statement speak about the opening of the bank accounts and also stated that some of the accounts have NIL balance and were lying in a dormant condition at the time of filing nomination papers. Therefore, there is no necessity to disclose the same in Form 26. The opening of the accounts for establishment of Self Help Groups, according to the petitioner, is new plea and the petitioner has to controvert the said facts by clarifying the relation between the accounts and Self Help Groups.

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accounts are joint accounts which actually belonged to the first respondent and others and nowhere mentioned that these accounts are the social or charitable account. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to merit consideration.

18. The petitioner being election petitioner and the election petition being civil litigation, the celebrated principle of variance between pleading and proof is very much attracted in the matter of appreciation of evidence.

It is lawful to the petitioner to file an application to add to his pleas already made in the election petition and the only condition thereon is the leave of the court. Even in cases that require leave, it is open to the court to grant leave with or without conditions.

19. It is pertinent to note that the law is well settled that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise a new plea under the garb of filing rejoinder/replica