THANGJAM ARUNKUMAR Vs. YUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the decision of the High Court of Manipur [Hereinafter "the High Court"] dtd. 11/4/2023, whereby the returned candidate's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Hereinafter, "the CPC"], to dismiss the election petition filed by the unsuccessful candidate on the ground that it lacks material particulars and is in violation of mandatory requirements of law was rejected by the High Court. The returned candidate is the Appellant before us.

(2.) The short and precise facts necessary for our consideration are as follows. The Appellant is the returned candidate to the XII Manipur Legislative Assembly, having been elected from the 15- Wangkhei Assembly Constituency. The Respondent No.1, the unsuccessful candidate moved Election Petition No. 24 of 2022 [Hereinafter, "the Election Petition"] alleging violations under Ss. 80, 80A, 81, 84 read with Ss. 100(1)(d)(iv) and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 [Hereinafter, "the Act"]. The election petitioner prayed that the election of the Appellant be held void and also to declare him to be the elected candidate. It is important to note that the election petition alleges corrupt practice, in as much as the petitioner pleaded that the returned candidate has not provided the material particulars with respect to a financial transaction relating to financing a loan.

(3.) In response to the election petition, the Appellant moved two applications under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC and under Sec. 86 of the Act seeking dismissal of the election petition on the grounds of - (i) non-disclosure of cause of action/triable issue vis-a-vis the alleged corrupt practice committed by the Appellant; (ii) the absence of a concise statement of facts as mandated under Sec. 83 of the Act; and (iii) for not serving a true self attested copy of the election petition on the returned candidate as provided under Sec. 81 of the Act. Apart from the above, and more importantly, the Appellant also sought dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the Form-25 affidavit as prescribed under Sec. 83 of the Act r/w Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [Hereinafter, the "Rules"] has not been filed along-with the election petition. It was alleged that such an affidavit is mandatory, as the election petition raises allegations of corrupt practice.