Manipur High Court
Thongam Shanti Singh vs Mairembam Prithviraj Singh @ … on 17 April, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA
[1]
DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.04.17 13:04:28
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(El. Petn.) No. 25 of 2024
(Ref:- El. Petn. No. 2 of 2022)
Thongam Shanti Singh, aged about 63 years, son of
(L) Th. Ibohal Singh, resident of Moirang Kiyam Leikai, P.O. &
P.S. Moirang, District - Bishnupur, Manipur - 795113.
... Applicant/ Respondent No. 1
-Versus-
1. Mairembam Prithviraj Singh @ Prithiviraj, aged about 43
years, son of (L) M. Manindra Singh, resident of Moirang
Kiyam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Moirang, District - Bishnupur,
Manipur - 795113.
... Opposite Party/ Petitioner
2. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh, about 73 years, son of
(L) P. Koiremba Singh, resident of Phairembam Leikai,
Moirang, P.O. & P.S. - Moirang, District - Bishnupur,
Manipur - 795133.
... Performa Opposite Parties/
Respondent No. 2.
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
(In Election Petition No. 2 of 2022)
Mairembam Prithviraj Singh @ Prithiviraj, aged about 43
years, son of (L) M. Manindra Singh, resident of Moirang
Kiyam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. - Moirang, District - Bishnupur,
Manipur - 795113.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
Thongam Shanti Singh, aged about 63 years, son of
(L) Th. Ibohal Singh, resident of Moirang Kiyam Leikai, P.O.
& P.S. Moirang, District - Bishnupur, Manipur - 795113.
MC(El. Petn.) No. 25 of 2024 Contd.../-
[2]
Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh, about 73 years, son of
(L) P. Koiremba Singh, resident of Phairembam Leikai,
Moirang, P.O. & P.S. - Moirang, District - Bishnupur,
Manipur - 795133.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Applicant :: Mr. N. Ibotombi, Senior Advocate
asstd. by Mr. A. Rommel, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Advocate &
Mr. N. Zequeson, Advocate
Date of Hearing :: 03-04-2025
Date of Order :: 17-04-2025
O R D E R
[1] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. A. Rommel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant; Mr. Ajoy
Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and
Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
The present application had been filed with a prayer to
grant leave to the applicant to produce and file originals and certified
copies of the documents enclosed as Annexure – Z/22 to Z/31 in the
present application in connection with election petition No. 2 of 2022.
[2] The case of the applicant is that on the basis of the pleadings
of the contesting parties, this court had framed ten issues to be
decided in the connected election petition and thereafter, examination of
the PWs had already started and still continuing. The applicant, who is
MC(El. Petn.) No. 25 of 2024 Contd…/-
[3]
the respondent No. 1 in the said connected election petition, stated
that in order to substantiate and support his defence against the said
election petition, he had already filed his written statement along with
21 (twenty one) documents marked as Annexure – Z/1 to Z/21 under a
proper list on 22-07-2022. It is also the case of the applicant that
except for the documents enclosed as Annexure – Z/5, Z/6, Z/10, Z/11,
Z/14 to Z/21, all the other remaining documents are either originals or
certified copies and that the documents marked as Annexure – Z/5, Z/6,
Z/10, Z/11, Z/14 to Z/21 filed along with the written statement are only
photostat copies as the applicant misplaced the originals and certified
copies of the said documents due to shifting to his official quarter from
his former residence.
[3] It is also the case of the applicant that recently by
coincidence, he came across and discovered the originals and certified
copies of the said documents enclosed as Annexure – Z/5, Z/6, Z/10,
Z/11, Z/14 to Z/21 filed along with his written statement. The applicant
also stated that he obtained certificate dated 17-10-2003 issued by the
SDC, Moirang, original letter dated 23-11-2023 of the Registrar,
Kanungo, DS & LR, Manipur, certified copy of the cancelled and
un-cancelled Jamabandi dated 24-04-2024 issued by the SDC, Moirang,
certified copy of the order dated 16-02-2024 passed by the SDO,
Moirang, in connection with land under Patta No. 1005 (N), Dag No.
MC(El. Petn.) No. 25 of 2024 Contd…/-
[4]
5669 having an area of 1.09 acre of Village No. 52-Moirang and certified
copy of the order dated 16-02-2024 passed by the SDO, Moirang in
connection the land under Patta No. 4723 (N) Dag No. 8443 having an
area of 0.025 acre of Village No. 52-Moirang. The applicant also stated
that all these documents are of recent origin and the same were
not in existence when the applicant filed his written statement dated
22-07-2022.
[4] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
applicant submitted that the aforesaid documents, which are originals
and certified copies, will have material bearing on the point of
controversy between the parties in the election petition and will throw
more light in arriving at a just decision in the lis and that the production
of the said documents enclosed as Annexure – Z/22 to Z/31 in the
present application is highly necessary in order to enable the applicant
to substantiate his averments made in the written statement and also to
assist this court at his utmost level in arriving at a just and proper
decision in the lis. It has also been stated that the applicant
could not produce and file the said documents along with his written
statement for the reasons given hereinabove and that no prejudice or
injury will be caused to the election petitioner by the production and
filing of the said originals and certified copies and by receiving the
MC(El. Petn.) No. 25 of 2024 Contd…/-
[5]
same in evidence on behalf of the applicant at the time of hearing of the
connected election petition.
[5] The learned senior counsel further submitted that in respect
of some of the said documents, the applicant had already filed photostat
copies and that the applicant also specifically stated/ pleaded all the
material facts in his written statement in respect of the other remaining
originals/ certified documents and that such documents are produced
and filed by way of furnishing particulars of the materials facts pleaded
by the applicant in his written statement. The learned senior counsel,
accordingly, prays for granting leave to the applicant to produce and
filed the said originals and certified documents enclosed as Annexure –
Z/22 to Z/31 in the present application. In support of his contention, the
learned senior counsel cited the following case laws:-
wherein it has been held as under:
“51. A distinction between “material facts” and “particulars”, however,
must not be overlooked. “Material facts” are primary or basic facts
which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by the defendant in
support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action
or defence. “Particulars”, on the other hand, are details in support
of material facts pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and
embellish material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic
contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear
and more informative. “Particulars” thus ensure conduct of fair trial
and would not take the opposite party by surprise.”
“52. All “material facts” must be pleaded by the party in support of the
case set up by him. Since the object and purpose is to enable the
opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence
of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to
state even a single material fact, hence, will entail dismissal of the
suit or petition. Particulars, on the other hand, are the details of the
case which is in the nature of evidence a party would be leading at
the time of trial.”
MC(El. Petn.) No. 25 of 2024 Contd…/-
[6]
(b) (2007) 3 SCC 617 “Virender Nath Gautam Vs. Satpal
Singh & ors.” wherein it has been held as under:
“34. A distinction between “material facts” and “particulars”, however,
must not be overlooked. “Material facts” are primary or basic facts
which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by the defendant in support
of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or
defence. “Particulars”, on the other hand, are details in support of
material facts pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and
embellish material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic
contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear
and more informative. “Particulars” thus ensure conduct of fair trial
and would not take the opposite party by surprise.”
“35. All “material facts” must be pleaded by the party in support of the
case set up by him. Since the object and purpose is to enable the
opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence
of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to
state even a single material fact, hence, will entail dismissal of the
suit or petition. Particulars, on the other hand, are the details of the
case which is in the nature of evidence a party would be leading at
the time of trial.”
“50. There is distinction between facta probanda (the facts required to be
proved i.e. material facts) and facta probantia (the facts by means of
which they are proved i.e. particulars or evidence). It is settled law
that pleadings must contain only facta probanda and not facta
probantia. The material facts on which the party relies for his claim
are called facta probanda and they must be stated in the pleadings.
But the facts or facts by means of which facta probanda (material
facts) are proved and which are in the nature of facta probantia
(particulars or evidence) need not be set out in the pleadings. They
are not facts in issue, but only relevant facts required to be proved
at the trial in order to establish the fact in issue.”
[6] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondent No. 1 and Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel appearing for
the proforma respondent No. 2 did not raise any strong objection to the
present application, however, both the counsel submitted that the
applicant is trying to file the original and certified copy of the documents
marked as Annexure – Z/22 to Z/31 after more than one year from the
date of framing of issues with the aim and object of delaying the
proceedings of the connected election petition. The learned counsel
MC(El. Petn.) No. 25 of 2024 Contd…/-
[7]
submitted that adequate cost may be imposed on the applicant for
causing delay in the proceeding of the connected election petition.
In response to the submission advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior
counsel submitted that no delay has been caused due to filing of the
present application, inasmuch as, the examination of the PWs is going
on without any interruption and that no delay has been caused by the
applicant by filing the present application.
[7] I have heard at length the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully perused
the materials available on record. On careful examination of the record,
this court found that photostat copies of most of the documents
enclosed as Annexure – Z/22 to Z/31 have already been filed by the
applicant along with his written statement and that specific material
facts have also been pleaded by the applicant in his written statement
relating to some of the remaining originals / certified copies of the
documents enclosed in the present application.
Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and keeping in view the
above quoted principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court,
this court is of the considered view that it will be in the interests of
justice to grant leave to the applicant to produce and file the documents
MC(El. Petn.) No. 25 of 2024 Contd…/-
[8]
enclosed as Annexure – Z/22 to Z/31 in the present application.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed by granting leave to the
applicant to produce and file the aforesaid documents.
Since no delay has been caused by the applicant by filing the
present application, this court is not inclined to accept the submission
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and
this court declined to impose any cost.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
MC(El. Petn.) No. 25 of 2024 Contd.../-
[ad_1]
Source link