MD.AMIN SHAH Vs. NAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/ petitioner and Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

(2.) This is an application filed by the applicant /petitioner praying for grant of leave of this Court to file a replication under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C read with Sec. 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 on the inter-alia grounds that after having gone through a copy of the written statement served upon him, it was found that new facts were disclosed therein which are required to be refuted by filing a replication and in the event of the application not being allowed to be filed, an irreparable injury would be caused to the applicant/petitioner which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

(3.) A written objection has been filed by the respondent No. 1 wherein it has been stated that he has given only the necessary reply to the election petition filed by the applicant/ petitioner and as such, there is no question of disclosing new facts in the written statement and moreover, in the replication sought to be filed by the applicant/ petitioner, many new facts/ grounds are found which the applicant/ petitioner didn't plead at the time of filing the election petition and therefore, the proposed replication of the applicant/ petitioner is barred by limitation under Sec. 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and in order to avoid further complication in the matter, the instant application deserves to be dismissed in-limine.