Manipur High Court
Shri Lorho S.Pfoze vs Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin Aged ... on 8 December, 2021
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
JOHN Digitally signed
by JOHN TELEN
TELEN KOM
Date: 2021.12.10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
KOM 16:08:39 +05'30' MC(EP) No.21 of 2021
Ref:Election Petion No.1 of 2019
Shri Lorho S.Pfoze, aged about 59 years S/O Late A. Sibo Pfoze,
resident of Kayinu Village, P.O. & P.S.- Mao, District, Senapati,
Manipur-795150.
....... Applicant
- Versus -
1. Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin aged about 36 years S/O (L)
H. Jamkhokhai Mate, resident of Tengnoupal Village, PO & PS-
Tengnoupal, District-Tengnoupal, Manipur-795131.
2. Angam Karung Kom, aged about 65 years, S/O Late Ashong Kom,
resident of K.R. Lane, PO & PS- Porompat, District-Imphal East,
Manipur-795005;
3. Shri Hangkhngpau Taithul, aged about 55 years, S/O Late T. Doupu,
resident of Singngat Hausa Veng, PO & PS-Singngat,
Churachandpur District, Manipur-795139;
4. Mr. Ashang Kasar @ Wungnaishang Kasar @ Wungnao Shang
Kasar, aged about 43 years, S/O Ngashathing Kasar, resident of
MC(EP) No.21 of 2021. Page 1
Chadong Village, PO & PS - Litan, Kamjong District, Manipur-
795145;
5. Leikhan Kaipu, aged about 54 years, S/O Late Leikhan Kokan,
resident of Heikakpokpi Village, PO Pallel P.S.- Machi, Machi Sub-
Division, Tengnoupal District, Manipur-795135
6. Thangminlien Kipgen, aged about 64 years, S/O Late Thangpu
Kipgen, resident of Haipi Village, PO- Kalapahar, Kangpokpi District,
Manipur-795122;
7. Shri K. James, aged about 56 years, S/O Late K. Ngatangmi,
resident of Tangkhul Hungdung Khullen, PO Lamlong, P.S. Litan,
Kamjong District, Manipur-795010
Presently residing at JIM Blessing Home, Sangaiprou
Mamang Leikai, Airport, Airport Road, PO & PS-Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.
.... Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Applicant : Mr.B.R. Sharma, Advt.
For the Respondents : Mr.Ajoy Pebam, Adv.
Date of hearing & reserved : 23.11.2021
Date of Judgment & Order : 08.12.2021
MC(EP) No.21 of 2021. Page 2
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] This application has been filed by the applicant to defer the further
proceedings of the Election Petition No.1 of 2019 for a reasonable period or till such time the SLP under Dairy No.10469 of 2021 is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[2] The applicant is the first respondent in the election petition. [3] Heard Mr. B.R Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the first respondent/election petitioner. [4] Mr. B.R. Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the applicant has filed M.C.(EP) No.25 of 2020 under order VII, Rule 11 CPC seeking to dismiss the election petition as the election petition has failed to disclose the cause of action in terms of the relevant provisions of the representation of the People Act, 1951 and by the order dated 25.3.2021, this Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed SLP in Dairy No.10469 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same shall be considered by MC(EP) No.21 of 2021. Page 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court may defer the further proceedings of the election petition till the disposal of the SLP. [5] On the other hand, Mr.Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the first respondent/election petitioner submitted that in order to delay the proceedings and trial of the main election petition, the applicant has filed the present application and mere filing of SLP cannot affect the proceeding of the election petition. He would submit that the SLP is not yet registered as the same was under defect list. [6] Learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that there is no provision for deferring the proceeding of the main election petition and the trial of the election petition is a special trail and Chapter III of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for trial of election petitions. Further, this is a very ill- intentional tactic adopted by the applicant to delay the trial and waste the valuable time of this Court.
[7] This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. MC(EP) No.21 of 2021. Page 4 [8] The prayer of the applicant is to defer hearing of the main election petition till SLP Diary No.10469 of 2021 is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[9] It appears that earlier the applicant has filed M.C. (EP) No.25 of 2020 before this Court under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC praying to dismiss the election petition as it has failed to disclose the cause of action in terms of the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951. By a detailed order dated 25.3.2021, this Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the application preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court assigned Diary No.10469 of 2021.
[10] According to the first respondent, the said SLP was under defect list and only to delay the trial in the election petition, the applicant has filed the present application.
[11] Mere filing of SLP before the Hon'ble Court cannot affect the proceeding of the main election petition and moreover, as admitted by the applicant, the SLP is not yet registered and in fact, the said SLP was under defect list. There is no interim order restraining this Court from proceeding with the main election petition.
MC(EP) No.21 of 2021. Page 5 [12] At this juncture, it is to be noted that it has become a continuous practice of the applicant to file application after application in order to delay the matter. For example, the very same applicant has filed M.C. (EP) No.39 of 2021 to reject the replication filed by the first respondent herein contrary to the submission made by him in M.C. (EP) No.27 of 2021.
[13] It is informed that the said SLP Diary No.10469 of 2021 is likely to be listed on 14.12.2021. Since the SLP has not yet been numbered and there is no interim order restraining this Court from proceeding with the election petition further, this Court is of the view that deferring the further proceedings of the election petition is not appropriate.
[14] The election petition is of the year 2019. Section 86(7) of the Representation of People Act provides that every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election is presented to the High Court for trial. In the Instant case, almost more than two years have been passed and the election petition has not seen the result.
MC(EP) No.21 of 2021. Page 6 [15] It is reiterated that mere filing of the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as against the order of dismissal of M.C. (EP) No.25 of 2020 cannot affect the proceeding of the instant election petition and moreover, there is no interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court restraining this Court from proceeding with the main election petition. Further, this Court is of the view that only in order to protract the proceedings in the trial of the election petition, the applicant has filed the instant application and the same cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed. [16] Accordingly, M.C. (EP) No.21 of 2021 is dismissed.
[17] No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John kom
MC(EP) No.21 of 2021. Page 7