Pleadings from a recrimination petition cannot be incorporated in the written statement of an election petition through an amendment

Manipur High Court Dismisses Plea for Amendment in Election Petition. Plea to Incorporate Recrimination Petition in Written Statement Denied; Cost Imposed on Applicant

In a significant ruling, the Manipur High Court, presided over by Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, dismissed an application seeking amendment of the written statement in an election petition. The application, filed by Shri Ningthoujam Mangi, sought to incorporate pleadings from a recrimination petition into the written statement of the main election petition against Mr. Ahanthem Shanjoy Singh. The court ruled that such amendments are impermissible as they do not pertain to the returned candidate and do not aid in determining the controversy in the election petition.

During the proceedings, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, counsel for the applicant, argued that the proposed amendments were already on record in the recrimination petition and were not new pleas. He contended that the amendments were necessary to resolve the real dispute between the parties and would not prejudice the respondents. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, Mr. Pebam emphasized the liberal construction of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), which permits amendments to pleadings to determine the real controversy.

However, opposing the plea, Mr. B.R. Sharma, representing the election petitioner, stressed that the application was devoid of merit and contrary to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act). He argued that the RP Act imposes a strict 45-day limit for filing election petitions, and the proposed amendments, which introduced new material facts, were time-barred. He further asserted that the recrimination petition's pleadings could not be incorporated into the election petition's written statement.

The court agreed with the respondents, emphasizing that while the CPC allows for wide discretion in amending pleadings, such discretion is limited by the RP Act's specific provisions. The court held that the proposed amendments did not relate to the returned candidate and were irrelevant to the election petition's determination. It reiterated that new material facts could not be introduced after the prescribed 45-day limit.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the applicant, payable to the High Court Bar Association of Manipur for relief purposes. The main election petition is scheduled for further proceedings on October 6, 2025.

Bottom Line:

Amendment of Written Statement in Election Petition - Pleadings from a recrimination petition cannot be incorporated in the written statement of an election petition through an amendment, especially when the proposed amendment does not pertain to the returned candidate and is irrelevant to the determination of the controversy in the election petition.

Statutory provision(s): Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sections 81, 83, 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Shri Ningthoujam Mangi v. Mr. Ahanthem Shanjoy Sigh, (Manipur) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2781384