JUDGMENT : The petitioner has filed the present application seeking leave of this Court to file replication in reply to the written statement of the respondent filed in the main petition alleging that he had perused the written statement filed by the respondent in the main Election Petition and has found false allegations in it, which, if not denied and/or clarified, shall cause prejudice to him. Hence, he seeks leave of this Court to file the replication. 2. Resisting the petition, the respondent filed objection stating that the petitioner had filed the Election Petition on 19.04.2017, which is after 39 days from the date of election. It is stated that the petitioner under the guise of his subsequent pIeading/replication is trying to amend his Election Petition in order to bring on record new pleadings and raise new grounds of challenge which were not raised in the Election Petition. If the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, it will amount to allowing him to change his pleading and raising new ground of challenge in contravention of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the written statement, the respondent had stated certain false allegations and if the same were not contravened and/or clarified, it would cause prejudice to petitioner. He would submit that if the application is allowed granting leave to the petitioner to file the replication, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and on the other hand, if leave is not granted, the petitioner would be put to great hardship and inconvenience. In support, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: (i) Kalyan Mal Mina v. Ratan Lal Tamb, reported in AIR 1981 Raj. 249 . (ii) Sunil and Vasanth Architects and consulting Engineers and another v. Tata Ceramics Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 Kerala 88. (iii) State of Rajasthan and another v. Mohammed Ikbal and others, reported in AIR 1999 Raj. 169 . (iv) Ghanshyam v. Vikram and others, reported in AIR 2007 P & H 14. (v) Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal and another, reported in AIR 2009 Raj. 87 . 4. (iii) State of Rajasthan and another v. Mohammed Ikbal and others, reported in AIR 1999 Raj. 169 . (iv) Ghanshyam v. Vikram and others, reported in AIR 2007 P & H 14. (v) Ramesh Kumar v. Chandu Lal and another, reported in AIR 2009 Raj. 87 . 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has filed the present petition with a view to amend his Election Petition in order to bring on record new pleadings and raise new grounds to challenge the result of the election, which are not raised in his Election Petition. He would submit that if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, it would amount to allowing him to change his pleadings and raise new ground of challenge in contravention of the provisions of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 5. The learned counsel then argued that subsequent pleading and replication sought to be filed contains new pleading and the ground of challenge not incorporated in the Election Petition is not permissible inasmuch as it is barred by time as provided under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. To fortify his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the following decisions: (i) Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1577 . (ii) Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder, reported in (1999) 9 SCC 386 . (iii) Jilu Patnaik v. Sanatan Mohakud, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 194 . 6. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the replication sought to be filed by him, no new facts or new pleas have been taken and only the averments made in the Election Petition have been explained. 8. The petitioner filed the Election Petition under Section 80 read with Section 100(1)(d)(i) of Part VI Chapter III of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for declaring that the election of the returned candidate viz., the respondent, to fill the seat in the Manipur Legislative Assembly from 1-Khundrakpam Assembly Constituency in the Eleventh Manipur State Legislative Assembly Election, 2017 is void on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination of the respondent. 9. 9. The respondent filed a detailed objection denying the averments set out in the Election Petition. The specific plea of the respondent is that he had never furnished any false information or filed any false affidavit in any election with the intent to be elected in such elections. In his written statement, the respondent denied the allegations that the respondent furnished false statement and/or false affidavit and that furnishing of the correct and true name of the respondent as recorded in the relevant Electoral Roll and furnishing of true and correct educational qualifications possessed by the respondent in his nomination papers amounts to violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. He had also denied that the nomination paper filed for and on behalf of the respondent stand invalid and void and that the nomination paper of the respondent is defective. According to the respondent, he is a candidate duly elected by the public in a fair and transparent manner and he had never resorted to any false means of getting himself elected. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the replication is the clarification of facts stated in the written statement and the same can be allowed with the leave of the Court. 11. There is no dispute that “replication” is the plaintiff’s answer to the defendant's plea and “rejoinder” is the defendant’s answer to the plaintiff's replication. 12. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines “replication” as pleading in common law made by the plaintiff in an answer to the defendant's plea; and a “rejoinder" as a second pleading in common law on the part of the defendant being his answer to the plaintiff's replication. 13. Where plaintiff wishes to offer affirmative matter in answer to affirmative plea of the defendant and involves another transaction consistent with the plaintiff's position as the original pleader, he must reply. This is the purpose of a “replication”. 14. A replication is not to be permitted to be filed ordinarily, much less in routine. A replication is permissible only in three situations, viz., (1) when required by law; (2) when a counter claim is raised by the defendant; (3) when the Court directs or permits a replication being filed. This is the purpose of a “replication”. 14. A replication is not to be permitted to be filed ordinarily, much less in routine. A replication is permissible only in three situations, viz., (1) when required by law; (2) when a counter claim is raised by the defendant; (3) when the Court directs or permits a replication being filed. The Court may direct filing of a replication when the Court having scrutinised the plaint and the written statement feels the necessity of asking the plaintiff to join specific pleadings to a case specifically and newly raised by the defendant in the written statement. 15. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being the election petitioner and the election petition being civil litigation, the celebrated principle of variance between pleading and proof is very much attracted in the matter of appreciation of evidence. 16. In Sunil and Vasanth Architects, supra, the Kerala High Court held as under: “......It is lawful to the plaintiff to file a replication to add to his pleas already made in the plaint and the only condition thereon is the leave of the Court. Even in cases that require leave, it is open to the Court to grant leave with or without conditions.” 17. In Kalyan Mal Mina, supra, the Rajasthan High Court held as under: “4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the question that emerges for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can present replication with the leave of the Court under O 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. as Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable by Section 87 of the Act for the trial of the election petition. The relevant part of Section 87 of the Act lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act and of any rules thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, “as nearly as may be”, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits. ........ The scope of the replication may be different that the contents of the election petition. ........ The scope of the replication may be different that the contents of the election petition. Whether a necessity for replication arises on account of any pleas taken in the reply has to be judged in a particular case in the light of the averments made in the reply, but on the basis of what is required to be pleaded in the election petition, it cannot be said that the provision relating to filing of subsequent pleading with the leave of the court has been done away with. ....” 18. In Ramesh Kumar, supra, the Rajasthan High Court held as follows: “23. Coming to the question of taking the rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 on record, it is to be noticed that Order 8, Rule 9 of CPC provides for pleadings subsequent to the written statement of the defendant, which reads as under : “No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same." 19. In Mohammed Ikbal, supra, the Rajasthan High Court observed as under : “9. The principles deducible from the above discussions may be summarised thus – (a) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. (b) In rejoinder, the plaintiff can be permitted to explain the additional facts which have been incorporated in the written statement. (c) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in his rejoinder. (d) The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action. (e) Application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC as both are contextually different.” 20. In Ghanshyam, supra, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held thus: “8. Learned Single Bench of this Court in Hakam Singh’s case (supra) has also held that replication can be filed by the plaintiff to the written statement under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code.” 21. In Ghanshyam, supra, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held thus: “8. Learned Single Bench of this Court in Hakam Singh’s case (supra) has also held that replication can be filed by the plaintiff to the written statement under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code.” 21. In Gopi Kishan, supra, the Rajasthan High Court held as follows: "12. At the very outset it may be observed that the burden of proof apart, inherently election petition is a civil litigation, and the pleadings, and the material on record, is not required to be appreciated in the manner like a criminal case. Obviously, the celebrated principle of ‘variance between pleading and proof', is very much attracted in the matter of appreciation of evidence, even in election petition.” 22. Admittedly, the practice of filing “replication” exists in certain parts of the State. It is meant only for denying and/or clarifying the facts stated in the written statement. Fresh cause of action or fresh case is not brought up by filing replication. I understand from the replication that it is not mainly a clarification regarding the facts as alleged by the petitioner. On the other hand, the averments contained in the replication are new pleas. 23. For better appreciation, certain portions of the replication are extracted herein below : “2. ...... It is stated that no date of alleged adoption is mentioned in its written statement which fact, if stated, will have far reaching consequence in the allegations (defence put up) by the respondent in its written statement. The respondent has suppressed vital and material fact regarding the date of alleged adoption, if any, and has not come with clean hands in giving his written state. 3. ...... It is stated that respondent's true identify is Oinam Lokeshwar Singh, s/o Oinam Khoidumba Singh. Shri Thokchom Navakumar Singh (now deceased) had sons, older than the respondent in age, and daughter, namely, Thokchom Nevidita. Nevidita, being the daughter of Late Thockchom Navakumar Singh, he would not have given her hand to the respondent, the alleged adoptive son in marriage. The said Nevidita is the wife of the respondent. Now the respondent has to tell many lies in order to justify one lie, i.e., he is the adoptive son of Late Thokchom Navakumar Singh. 4. ....... The said Nevidita is the wife of the respondent. Now the respondent has to tell many lies in order to justify one lie, i.e., he is the adoptive son of Late Thokchom Navakumar Singh. 4. ....... It is stated that the respondent's true identify as Oinam Lokeshwar Singh s/o Oinam Khoidumba of Nongmaikhong is entered in the electoral roll of 1989 at Sl.No.230 (2) House no.41 of polling station no. & name 38/20 Arong Nongmaikhong of 38-Hiyanglam A/C, Thoubal District within 2-Outer Manipur Parliamentary S.C. Constituency. Again the respondent's true identity as Oinam Lokeshwar Singh s/o Oinam Khoidumba of Nongmaikhong is entered in the electoral roll of 1993 at Sl. No. 260 (7) House no.41 of polling station no. & name 38/20 Arong Nongmaikhong of 38-Hiyanglam A/C, Thoubal District within 2-Outer Manipur Parliamentary S.C. Constituency. 5. ...... It is stated and reiterated that the respondent deliberately concealed the fact that he is Oinam Lokeshwar Singh s/o Oinam Khoidumba of Nongmaikhong and he gave the wrong statement that he is Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh s/o Thokchom Navakumar Singh resident of Sagolmang Mamang Leikai.” 24. Referring to the aforesaid averments made by the petitioner in the replication, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the averments as quoted above are nothing but new pleas which cannot be taken into consideration by this Court by granting leave to the petitioner to file the replication. The learned counsel also submitted that Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires every Election Petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. Further, the learned counsel argued that material facts and particulars are required to be given in the Election Petition and not in the replication filed much after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the Election Petition. 25. In Jeet Mohinder Singh, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “40 (v) Section 83 of the Act requires every election petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the applicant relies. ..... ” ............... 45. The appellant filed replication to the written statement filed by the respondent. 25. In Jeet Mohinder Singh, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “40 (v) Section 83 of the Act requires every election petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the applicant relies. ..... ” ............... 45. The appellant filed replication to the written statement filed by the respondent. It is in the replication that the appellant has come out with an averment (vide para 8) that some amongst the electors who were threatened by Shri Sangram Singh, SHO were Jagseer Singh (not examined), Dharminder Singh, PW 13, Jaswant Singh (not examined), Jagraj Singh (not examined), and Mander Singh (not examined). Here itself, we may observe that material facts and particulars as to commission of corrupt practice are required to be given in the election petition and not in the replication filed much after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing election petition. The material facts and particulars alleged for the first time in the replication and not forming part of the averments made in the election petition cannot be tried and cannot be made the subject matter of issues framed by the court. The learned Designated Election Judge has taken care to frame the issues only by reference to the averments made in the election petition and not by referring to the averments made for the first time in the replication. Firstly, the respondent does not have an opportunity of denying the averments - whether facts or particulars, introduced for the first time in replication. Secondly, as already stated material facts and particulars as to corrupt practice are required to be supported by an affidavit in the prescribed pro forma. The replication is not supported by any affidavit in the prescribed pro forma.” 26. In Jitu Patnaik, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “24. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr Mukul Rohatgi. In long line of cases beginning from 1952 this Court has stated time and again that right to contest the election or to question the election by means of the election petition is neither common law nor fundamental right. Instead, it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions contained in the 1951 Act. The 1951 Act is complete and self-contained code within which the rights claimed in relation to an election or election dispute must be found. Instead, it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions contained in the 1951 Act. The 1951 Act is complete and self-contained code within which the rights claimed in relation to an election or election dispute must be found. It is not necessary to refer to all such decisions in this regard, but reference to few of them, namely, N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 ; Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210 ; Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, (1982) 1 SCC 691 ; Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1987 Supp SCC 93 and Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, (1999) 8 SCC 266 shall suffice.” 27. In Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “14. ..... Right to contest election or to question the election by means of an election petition is neither common law nor fundamental right instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There is no fundamental or common law right in these matters. This is well settled by catena of decisions of this Court in N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, 1952 SCR 218 : ( AIR 1952 SC 14 ), Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210 , Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982) 3 SCR 318 : ( AIR 1982 SC 983 ). These decisions have settled the legal position that outside the statutory provisions there is no right to dispute an election. The Representation of the People Act is a complete and self contained Code within which any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must be found. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the extent as permissible by S.87 of the Act. The scheme of the Act as noticed earlier would show that an election can be questioned under the statute as provided by S.80 on the grounds as contained in S.100 of the Act. Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision in providing that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of corrupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by S.83 and it makes it obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. Section 83 lays down a mandatory provision in providing that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars of corrupt practice. The pleadings are regulated by S.83 and it makes it obligatory on the election petitioner to give the requisite facts, details and particulars of each corrupt practice with exactitude. If the election petition fails to make out a ground under S.100 of the Act it must fail at the threshold. ..... ” 28. From a reading of the averments in the replication, it is clear that the petitioner under the guise of his subsequent pleading is trying to amend his original Election Petition in order to bring on record new pleadings and to raise new grounds of challenge, which were not stated and/or raised in the Election Petition. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted leave to file the replication, it would amount to allowing him to change his pleadings in contravention of the provisions of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Admittedly, as stated supra, some of the averments in the replication are new pleadings and the same are not permissible in as much as it is also barred by time as per Section 81 of the Act. Thus, the averments made in the replication cannot be said to be an explanation, as contended by the petitioner, but are altogether different pleas and, therefore, the same cannot be taken on record by granting leave to the petitioner. 29. Generally, it is not permissible to file a rejoinder or replica to all allegations made in the written statement and the rejoinder or replica can be filed with the permission of the Court only if the defendant has raised a plea of new facts and, thus, permission must be granted after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, especially, the pleas which have been raised in the written statement. In the garb of submitting a rejoinder, plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas in his plaint so as to alter the basis of his plaint. In a rejoinder, the plaintiff may simply explain if certain additional facts have been taken in the written statement, but he cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in the rejoinder. In a rejoinder, the plaintiff may simply explain if certain additional facts have been taken in the written statement, but he cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in the rejoinder. At the risk of repetition, the original pleas cannot be permitted to be altered under the garb of filing a rejoinder. Rejoinder/replication cannot be permitted for introducing pleas which are not consistent with the earlier pleas. 30. It is settled position that rejoinder/replication cannot be filed as a matter of right and it is an absolute discretion of the Court to grant leave to present a fresh pleading. A party seeking permission under Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. has to provide “cogent reason for permission” to file additional plea. 31. Filing of reply statement/additional pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC is only meant for clarifying the fact already averred in the pleadings. The provision is not meant to introduce new pleas altering the basis of the Plaint. The principles deductible from the various discussions is summarised in MULLA's, The Code of Civil Procedure, 16th Edn., Page 2000, which is as under : (i) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas by way of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. (ii) ....... (iii) The plaintiff cannot be allowed to come forward with an entirely new case in his rejoinder. (iv) The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action. (v) Application under O 8 R 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be treated as one under O 6 R 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as both are contextually different. 32. Order 8 Rule 9 CPC invests the Court with wide discretion to receive the reply statement. But the discretion cannot be exercised to cause serious prejudice to the defendants allowing the plaintiff to change the entire plea and complicating the issues involved. The exercise of discretion cannot be extended to the extent of allowing such applications introducing new plea. The position is similar to the Election Petition also. Moreover, in the instant case, the application has been filed belatedly setting forth new pleas. 33. The exercise of discretion cannot be extended to the extent of allowing such applications introducing new plea. The position is similar to the Election Petition also. Moreover, in the instant case, the application has been filed belatedly setting forth new pleas. 33. As stated supra, the plea sought to be raised in the replication are new plea and any new plea and/or ground by way of replication that too in an Election Petition, much after the expiry of 45 days, cannot be entertained. Further, permitting a new ground to be raised beyond the time prescribed in Section 81 of the Act would amount to contravention of the provision and is also beyond the ambit of Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The reason for leave to file the replication is not convincing and moreover, the averments contained in the replication are new pleas and also it has been filed belatedly in contravention of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 34. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking leave of this Court to file replication deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, M.C. (Election Petition) No.23 of 2017 is dismissed. No costs.