P a g e | 1

MC(El.Pet.) No. 36 of 2023 (Ref:- 1) MC(El.Pet.) No. 111 of 2022 and 2) El. Petn.

10 of 2022))

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

MC(El. Pet.) No. 36 of 2023

Ref:- 1) MC(El.Pet.) No. 111 of 2022

2) El. Pet. No. 10 of 2022

Kshetrimayum Biren Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Late

Ksh. Pishak Singh of Sabungkhok Mayai Leikai, BPO-

Yaingangpokpi, P.S. Yaingangpokpi Imphal East District,

Manipur.

… … Applicant/Election Petitioner

-VERSUS-

1. Khongbantabam Ibomcha Singh, aged about 63 years, S/O

Late Pishak of Nongada Makha Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S.

Lamlai, Imphal East District, Manipur.

…. …. Op/Respondent.

2. Achoibam Deben Singh, aged about 41 years, S/O A.

Rabungo Singh of Lamlai Mayai Leikai, P.O Lamlong,

P.S.Lamlai, Imphal East District, Manipur.

3. Mongjam Poireihenba Meetei, aged about 35 years, S/O

Late Mongjam Ibochou Meetei Singh of Yourabung

Mamang Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East

District, Manipur.

4. Sapam Kangleipal Meitei, aged about 40 years, S/O S.

Shyamdunder Meitei of Nongada Awang Leikai, P.O.

Lamlong, P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East District, Manipur.

…. …. Respondents.

SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL

SHARMA

Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM

SUSHIL SHARMA

Date: 2023.09.06 10:44:26 +05'30'

P a g e | 2

MC(El.Pet.) No. 36 of 2023 (Ref:- 1) MC(El.Pet.) No. 111 of 2022 and 2) El. Petn.

10 of 2022))

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the applicant

::

Mr. T. Rajendra, Sr. Adv.

.

For the Respondents

::

Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Adv.

Date of Hearing and

reserving Judgment & Order ::

05.07.2023

Date of Judgment & Order ::

06.09.2023

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(CAV)

Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned senior counsel for

the applicant and Mr. Ajoy Pebam, the learned counsel for the

first respondent.

2.

This miscellaneous case has been filed by the

petitioner to permit the petitioner to file a rejoinder to the

replication/subsequent pleading filed by the first respondent in

the election petition.

3.

The petitioner herein is the election petitioner. The

petitioner has filed the election petition to declare the election of

the first respondent from No.8-Laimai Assembly Constituency

as void and to declare the petitioner as duly elected candidate

from the said Constituency. Pending election petition, the first

respondent filed M.C.No.111 of 2022 to reject the election

petition. The petitioner has filed his written objection to

P a g e | 3

MC(El.Pet.) No. 36 of 2023 (Ref:- 1) MC(El.Pet.) No. 111 of 2022 and 2) El. Petn.

10 of 2022))

M.C.No.111 of 2022 and the first respondent has filed

M.C.No.212 of 2022 to allow him to file replication to the written

objection. By the order dated 16.5.2023, M.C.No.212 of 2022

was allowed by this Court. Subsequently, the petitioner has

filed the present M.C.No.36 of 2023 to allow him to file the

rejoinder to the replication.

4.

Mr. T. Rajendra, the learned senior counsel for the

applicant submitted that during the pendency of the election

petition, the first respondent filed M.C.No.111 of 2022 under

Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 86(1) of the

Representation of People Act for rejecting the election petition.

The petitioner herein opposed the said petition by filing his

written objection dated 28.9.2022. The first respondent had

filed M.C.No.212 of 2022 under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC for

granting leave to file subsequent pleading/replication to the

written objection dated 28.9.2022 filed by the petitioner. This

Court, by the order dated 16.5.2023 in M.C.No.212 of 2022

granted leave to the first respondent to file the replication to the

written objection dated 28.9.2022 filed by the petitioner. While

allowing the petition, in paragraph 13, this Court observed that

there is no dispute that “replication” is the plaintiff’s answer to

the defendant’s plea and “r