Manipur High Court
Konthoujam Govindas Singh vs Oinam Nabakishore Singh & Anr on 11 March, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
IN. 63
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.03.12 13:37:33
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(El. Petn.) No. 7 of 2025
(Ref:- El. Petn. No. 9 of 2022)
Konthoujam Govindas Singh ... Applicant
Vs.
Oinam Nabakishore Singh & anr. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
11-03-2025
Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for
the applicant and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. A. Rommel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and
Md. Fakhruddin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
The present application has been filed with the prayer for
framing additional issues as proposed in para 3 of the present
application, which are as under:-
“1. Whether the three storey building over the homestead land under
Dag No. 4313 measuring an area of 0.13739 acres at Village No. 42
Keishamthong is a commercial building or not? If the said three
storey building is a commercial building, has the respondent No.
1 disclose the said building in Part A Para 7B(iii) of his form 26
affidavit.
2. Whether such non-disclosure of the commercial building over the
homestead land under Dag No. 4313 at Village No. 42
Keishamthong would amount to ‘undue influence’ or not?
3. Whether non-disclosure of the caste of the respondent would
amount to undue influence or not?”
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1 raised strong objection with regard to framing of the
MC(El. Petn.) No. 7 of 2025 Contd…/-
-2-
additional issues. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel
that so far as the proposed additional issue No.1 is concerned, the
applicant is trying to improve his case by proposing for framing of
the said issue. The learned senior counsel submitted that nowhere in
his El. Recr. Petn., the applicant has specifically pleaded that the
respondent No. 1 did not disclosed his building in Part A Para 7B(iii) of
his Form 26 affidavit. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel submitted
that framing of such issue will amount to allowing the applicant to
improve his case and such proposal should not be allowed.
In reply, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel submitted that
even though the applicant did not specifically pleaded in his election
petition that he did not disclosed the said building in Part A Para 7B(iii)
of his Form 25 affidavit, the applicant specifically pleaded in para 12(ii)
of his El. Recr. Petn. that the respondent No. 1 deliberately concealed
the fact of the said building and did not disclosed it in the Commercial
Building column. The learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the
said proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real
controversy in issue.
Taking into consideration this fact, this court is of the
considered view that it will be in the interests of justice to frame one
additional issue which are as under:-
(i) Whether the three storey building over the homestead land
under Dag No. 4313 measuring an area of 0.13739 acres at
Village No. 42 Keishamthong is a commercial building or not?
If the said three storey building is a commercial building,
has respondent No. 1 disclosed the said building in the
Commercial Building column of his From – 26 affidavit.
MC(El. Petn.) No. 7 of 2025 Contd…/-
-3-
So far as the proposed issue No. 2 is concerned, there is merit
in the objection raised by the learned senior counsel that the applicant
has not pleaded anything in his El. Recr. Petn. and as such, framing of
the second proposed issue is impermissible and not necessary and such
proposal should be rejected.
Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel submitted that even though
the applicant did not make any specific pleading in his El. Recr. Petn.,
framing of such issue is necessary as the said proposed issue
No. 2 is a question of law.
Taking into consideration the submission advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the considered
view that framing of additional issue No. 2 as proposed is not permissible
inasmuch as the petitioner has not pleaded anything in his El. Recr.
Petn. and as such, the proposed second issue is hereby rejected.
So far as the proposed issue No. 3 is concerned,
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel raised strong objection on the
ground that the applicant has not specifically stated the name of the
caste to which the respondent No. 1 belong and that the proposed
amendment is vague and it is not required to be framed additional issue
at all. In answer, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel submitted that the
applicant has specifically pleaded in para 12(i) of his El. Recr. Petn. that
the respondent No. 1 did not disclosed that he belongs to a Scheduled
Caste and that non-disclosure of such facts has resulted in undue
influence and as such, the additional issue No. 3 is very much required
to be framed for deciding the real controversy in the El. Recr. Petn.
After considering the rival submissions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the
MC(El. Petn.) No. 7 of 2025 Contd…/-
-4-
averments made by the applicant in para 12 of his El. Recr. Petn., this
court is of the considered view that it will be in the interests of justice to
frame the following additional issue:-
(ii) Whether non-disclosure of the Scheduled Caste of the
respondent No. 1/ petitioner in the El. Recr. Petn. would
amount to undue influence or not?
With the framing of these above two additional issues, the
present application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Devananda
MC(El. Petn.) No. 7 of 2025 Contd.../-
IN. 64 to 66
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
El. Petn. No. 9 of 2022
Oinam Nabakishore Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
Konthoujam Govindas Singh & anr. ... Respondents
With
El. Recr. Petn. No. 9 of 2022 &
MC(El. Petn.) No. 58 of 2022
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
11-03-2025
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
election petitioner submitted that because of the two additional issues
framed today in connection with the El. Recr. Petn. No. 9 of 2022, the
learned counsel prays that the election petitioner be allowed to recall
DW1 in the said El. Recr. Petn. for his further examination in connection
with the said two additional issues framed today. The learned senior
counsel further submitted that recalling of the DW1 for his further
examination is necessary as examination-in-chief and cross examination
have already concluded in El. Recr. Petn. No. 9 of 2022 on 23-11-2023.
Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel submitted that he has
no objection.
Further, the petitioner in the El. Recr. Petn. is hereby directed
to submit the examination-in-chief of the witnesses on or before
13-03-2025 with advance copy to the learned counsel appearing for the
election petitioner and registry is directed to place the record of these
cases before the appointed Advocate Commissioner on 20-03-2025 for
further examination of the PWs in connection with the election petition.
JUDGE
Devananda
MC(El. Petn.) No. 7 of 2025 Contd.../-