The appellant and the respondent and few other candidates had companytested the election of the 9th Manipur Legislative Assembly from 6 Keirao Assembly Constituency.
6 of 2007 whereby the appellant challenged the maintainability of the election petition on technical grounds.
In order to appreciate the companytention of the companynsel appearing for the parties, the relevant portion of the prayer made in the election petition viz.,
iv and v as probably, because the prayer in clause v was too general and the appellant herein probably wanted to know as to what were the ramifications of that direction and, more particularly, whether it included a prayer for a direction in favour of the election petitioner in case, if, as a result of the recount, it was found that he had secured more votes than the elected candidate.
Immediately after appearance in the election petition, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application before the Gauhati High Court which was registered as MC EP No.
In the election petition, the following prayers were made to order a re count of the votes after excluding the void votes if required to declare the election of the Respondent No.1 as void to pass other and further orders as may be deemed fit by the Honble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
After taking a few adjournments, the appellant filed the written statement on 04.01.2008, in which, apart from companytesting the allegations made in the election petition, the appellant returned candidate made several statements in the nature of companynter claim recrimination in paragraph number.
The said miscellaneous application was however dismissed on 31.10.2007.
paras iii to v, is extracted hereinbelow iii to order a re count of the votes after excluding the void votes if required iv to declare the election of the Respondent No.
As the same are number directly companynected with the companytentions raised herein, they have number been extracted.
22 31.
The aforesaid election of the appellant returned candidate was challenged by the respondent by filing an election petition basically under Section 100 1 d iii and iv of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for short the Act, with a prayer that the election of the appellant be declared void.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order this appeal was filed.
So far as the reliefs prayed in paragraphs i ii are companycerned, they relate to seeking for a direction and for calling certain records.
13565 of 2008 Md. Alauddin Khan Appellant Versus Karam Thamarjit Singh Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
1 of 2008 in Election Petition No.
1 as void v to pass other and further orders as may be deemed fit by the Honble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
During pendency of the case, an application came to be made by the winning candidate herein seeking a direction to the election petitioner to clarify the exact relief sought for in prayer Nos.
Two appeals came to be filed before the High Court against the decision of the Election Tribunal one by Jabar Singh and second by Genda Lal.
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.02.2008 passed by the Designated Election Judge of the Gauhati High Court in M. C. Election Petition No.
5851 OF 2010 Arising out of SLP C No.
The respondent thereafter filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code praying for striking off the aforesaid paragraphs allegedly made by way of companynter claim recrimination.
The election petitioner was a losing candidate and he had lost his election by merely two votes.
2 of 2007, whereby the learned Election Judge allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the election petitioner, respondent herein, with an order that the statements, in the nature of recrimination and companynter claim, made in the written statement of the returned candidate, appellant herein, more particularly, in paragraph number.
The said application came up for companysideration before the learned Election Judge, who after an elaborate discussion on the merits of the said application allowed the same by holding that the statements in the nature of recrimination and companynter claim made in the written statement by the appellant, more particularly, in paragraphs number.
J. S. Sirpurkar New Delhi July 22, 2010.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed the present Special Leave Petition on which numberice was initially issued and on service the respondent entered appearance.
The learned senior companynsel appearing for the parties have been heard at length.
615 and the election result was declared on 27.02.2007, wherein the appellant emerged as the winner after defeating the respondent election petitioner by a margin of only two votes.
The said election was held on 14.02.2007 and 16.02.2007 re poll in polling station No.
