TITOSSTAR WELL CHYNE Vs. GAVIN MIGUEL MYLLIEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Misc. Application has been filed by the Election Petitioner under Sec. 141 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Sec. 81(3) and Sec. 87(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as RP Act, 1951), for granting leave to allow the Applicant/Election Petitioner to furnish attested copies of the Election Petition to the respondents, as in the main Election Petition No. 2 of 2023, while furnishing copies to the respondents pursuant to order dtd. 13/4/2023, photo copies of the same only was supplied. The respondent No. 1, then on entering appearance had filed a Misc. Case being MC(EP) No. 19 of 2023, raising the issue of non-maintainability of the Election Petition on various grounds, which amongst others, included the non-furnishing of attested copies of the Election Petition duly signed by the Applicant/Election Petitioner. As such, by way of the instant application, leave of this Court has been sought to allow the furnishing of attested copies of the Election Petition, duly signed by the Election Petitioner to the respondents.

(2.) Mr. N. Jotendra Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Singha, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the non furnishing of the duly attested copies, was due to inadvertence and is not intentional. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that there should be no impediment in this Court allowing the application, inasmuch as, the applicant can furnish the attested copies before hearing of the objection of the respondent No. 1 is taken up. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil R. Deshmukh Vs. Onkar N. Wagh and Ors. reported in (1999) 2 SCC 205, wherein it has been held, that even before arguments were heard on preliminary objections, as the true copy of the affidavits had been served on the first respondent and his counsel, there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Sec. 81(3) read with 83(1)(c) of the RP Act, 1951, even though, the copies served in the first instance on the respondents was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. As such, he submits, the judgment covers the instant case, and thus will overcome the technical objection that has been raised by the respondent No. 1.

(3.) Mr. S. Sahay, learned counsel assisted by Ms. S.K. Nongrum, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has at the outset submitted that, the application is not maintainable, inasmuch as, Ss. 141 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are inapplicable in the proceedings, as the same are to be conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of RP Act, 1951, which is a self-contained code. It has been further submitted that, the instant application by the Election Petitioner is an admission of the fact that, the Election Petition originally filed, is defective and that the same will be barred by limitation, as only upon correction of the defects will the Election Petition be compliant with the statutory requirements. He submits that therefore, the election results having been declared as far back as on 2 nd March, 2023, the 45 (forty-five) days period allowed for preferring the Election Petition had expired on 17/4/2023, and as such, the instant application being filed on 10/7/2023, is well beyond the period of limitation, and should be rejected.