TITOSSTAR WELL CHYNE Vs. GAVIN MIGUEL MYLLIEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of MC (EP) No. 19 of 2023 in the present Election Petition, the respondent had preferred an application under Sec. 86 of Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Gauhati High Court Rules, (as adopted by the High Court of Meghalaya). The grounds taken were that the Election petition is ex-facie barred by Sec. 86 of the Act being filed in violation of Ss. 81, 82 & 83 of the said Act. This Court then by order dtd. 31/10/2023, disposed of the said Misc. Case by holding that as it could not be conclusively ascertained whether the election petitioner was present or not at the time of presentation, the issue raised by the respondent needed to be taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration by the adducing of evidence. Thereafter, this Court by order dtd. 21/2/2024, after suggested issues had been filed by the parties, framed the following issues:

(2.) The election petitioner and two witnesses on his behalf, then filed their Examination-in-Chief by way of affidavits on 20/5/2024. In the intervening period however, before the Cross-Examination could be conducted, the respondent filed an application being MC (EP) No. 4 of 2024 under Sec. 379 of the BNSS 2023, wherein the respondent No. 1, raised allegations of the election petitioner furnishing a false affidavit for the purpose of being used in a judicial proceeding. This was then followed by an application being MC (EP) No. 8 of 2024 by the election petitioner, seeking replacement of his statement (Examination-in-Chief) on affidavit filed on 20/5/2024, by another statement (Examination-in-Chief) on affidavit. This Court then by order dtd. 28/11/2024, after hearing the parties observed that the earlier statement having been made on oath and the same being vital to the proceedings of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the prayer of the election petitioner for replacement of the affidavit was rejected. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the order dtd. 28/11/2024 being relevant are reproduced hereinbelow: -

(3.) In his Examination-in-Chief, the election petitioner apart from the other statements had stated that the Election petition was sworn before the Notary Public on 12/4/2023 in the afternoon, and thereafter at about 3:00 P.M. of the same day, he along with the other two witnesses and the conducting counsel had tendered the election petition for filing before the Stamp Reporter. In the Cross-Examination, which was conducted on 20/5/2025, the election petitioner's most significant statements concern the events of 11th and 12/4/2023, wherein he states that on 12/4/2023, he along with the other two witnesses left Sohra at around 9:00 A.M and admits that he was not carrying any copies of the Election petition or its annexures with him from Sohra. He has pleaded ignorance of the basic facts as to how many copies were signed before the Notary or the exact process involved. The relevant extract from the Cross-Examination is reproduced hereinunder:-