Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 14 (MAN)

Khwairakpam Loken Singh v. Rajkumar Imo Singh

2022-01-31

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This review petition has been filed to review the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 by allowing the prayer of the petitioner made in the said Miscellaneous Case. 2. The applicant herein is the petitioner in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 as well as in the Election Petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during the proceedings of the Election Petition, the applicant had filed two Miscellaneous Cases being M.C.(EP) Nos.15 and 16 of 2018 and both the Miscellaneous Cases were heard together. By the order dated 14.1.2019, M.C.(EP) No.16 of 2018 was dismissed. However, no order was passed in M.C.(EP) No.15 of 2018 and the said petition was kept pending. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 14.1.2019, an SLP No.10804 of 2019 was preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that while so, M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 was listed again on 15.4.2019 and was dismissed by this Court on the ground that both the Miscellaneous Cases were with similar prayers. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.2019, the applicant has filed the present Review Petition on the ground that the prayers made in the said two Miscellaneous Cases are different and therefore, there is an error in the order dated 15.4.2019. 6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the petitioner can maintain a Review Petition against the order passed only on the following aspects: (a) The order passed by this Court suffers from error apparent on the face of records. (b) The material fact, which was already there before this Court, was not brought to the notice of this Court when the order was passed. 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that the principles aforesaid for filing the review have been enunciated in various judgments of the Apex Court and therefore, whenever, a review is sought against the order passed by the Court, the Review Petition must be filed within the contours of the above two principles of law otherwise the Review Petition would not be maintainable in the eyes of law. In the instant case, admittedly, the aforesaid two principles were absent. 8. In the instant case, admittedly, the aforesaid two principles were absent. 8. Learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent then submitted that M.C.(EP) No.15 of 2018 is dismissed consequent upon the dismissal of M.C.(EP) No.16 of 2018 and therefore, the question of reviewing the dismissal order does not arise. That apart, when the order was passed on M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 on 15.4.2019, learned counsel for the applicant has not raised any objection and therefore, the applicant is bound to face the consequences. 9. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The grievance of the applicant in seeking to review the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 is that the prayer made in M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018 and M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 are different and this Court, inadvertently, dismissed M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 on the ground that the prayer made in the said Miscellaneous Case is similar to the prayer made in M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018. 11. In order to appreciate the prayers made in both the Miscellaneous Cases, it would be necessary to extract the prayers, which read as under: 'Prayer in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018: In the premises aforesaid it is therefore prayed that your lordships may be pleased to grant leave to the election petitioner to produce the original of the documents mentioned at paragraph 3 at the time of hearing and/or pass such other/orders or direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.' Prayer in M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018: In the premises aforesaid it is therefore prayed that your lordships may be pleased to call for the documents mentioned in schedule annexed with this application form the respective authorities indicated in the Schedule and on receipt of the documents allow the petitioner to inspect the documents and take certified copies thereof and/or pass such other/orders or direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.' 12. It is seen that the prayer in M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018 was objected by the contesting respondent. However, no objection was filed in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018. M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018 came to be dismissed by this Court on 14.01.2019 after considering the arguments of the contesting respondent. It is seen that the prayer in M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018 was objected by the contesting respondent. However, no objection was filed in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018. M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018 came to be dismissed by this Court on 14.01.2019 after considering the arguments of the contesting respondent. However, on the said date, no order was passed in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 and M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 was kept pending. While so, M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 was taken up for hearing on15.4.2019 and this Court passed the following order: 'This Court by an order dated 14.01.2019 dismissed the MC (El.Petn.) No.16 of 2018 (Ref:El.Petn.No.5 of 2017) having the same prayer as it is sought for in the present MC (El.Petn.) No.15 of 2018. Hence, this MC (El.Petn.) No.15 of 2018 is also dismissed as it has the same prayer and relief as sought for in MC (El.Petn.) No.16 of 2018. MC stands dismissed as above.' 13. Admittedly, the prayer in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 is to grant leave to produce the original documents, which were in possession of the petitioner and the prayer in M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018 is calling upon documents listed out in the said petition from the electoral authority. Thus, it is clear that the prayers made in the aforesaid two Miscellaneous Cases are quite different. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there appears to be an error in the order dated 15.4.2019 in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018. 14. It appears that aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2019 passed in M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018, the applicant has preferred S.L.P.No.10804 of 2019 and the same was, according to the applicant, disposed of by the Apex Court by directing the High Court to consider the Document Nos.15 to 20 of Schedule-II. Thereafter, the applicant has field M.C. (EP) No.19 of 2020 and the said Miscellaneous Case was allowed on 15.1.2021. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15.1.2021, the contesting respondent preferred Civil Appeal No.804 of 2021 arising out of S.L.P.No.2743 of 2021 before the Apex Court. 15. It also appears that by the order dated 03.03.2021, the Apex Court remanded the matter back to this Court for reconsideration of the Document Nos.15 to 20 by analyzing each documents by restoring M.C. (EP) No.19 of 2020. 15. It also appears that by the order dated 03.03.2021, the Apex Court remanded the matter back to this Court for reconsideration of the Document Nos.15 to 20 by analyzing each documents by restoring M.C. (EP) No.19 of 2020. Accordingly, this Court considered M.C. (EP) No.19 of 2020 and by the order dated 20.9.2021, the said Miscellaneous Case was allowed. Challenging the said order dated 20.9.2021, the contesting respondent preferred S.L.P. before the Apex Court and, according to the applicant, the same was dismissed. 16. The petitioner has filed the instant Review Petition No.1 of 2019 praying to review the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018. As stated supra, M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 has been filed by the applicant to grant leave to the Election Petitioner to produce the original of the documents mentioned at Paragraph 3 at the time of hearing. 17. On a perusal of the order passed in M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018, it is clear that the said Miscellaneous Case was filed by the petitioner calling upon the documents mentioned in Schedule-I and II from the respective authorities stated in the Schedule and upon receipt of the documents, to take certified copies thereof. Thus, it is clear that the prayers made in the aforesaid two Miscellaneous Cases viz., M.C. (EP) Nos.15 and 16 of 2018 are different. The fact remains that this Court in an earlier occasion has not dealt with M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018, while considering M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018. 18. As stated supra, subsequent to the order dated 14.02.2019, this Court dismissed M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018, vide order dated 15.4.2019 observing that the prayer sought in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 is similar to the prayer sought in M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018. The said finding arrived at by this Court appears to be an error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the same has to be rectified by reviewing the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018. By reviewing the order dated 15.4.2019, no prejudice would be caused to the contesting respondent. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer sought in the Review Petition. 19. By reviewing the order dated 15.4.2019, no prejudice would be caused to the contesting respondent. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer sought in the Review Petition. 19. As far as the prayer made in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 is concerned, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the prayer in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case cannot be acceded to for the reason that the documents referred in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 are also the same documents as contained in Schedule-I and II annexed to M.C. (EP) No.16 of 2018. 20. M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 filed seeking leave to produce the original of the documents in possession and power of the Election Petitioner. On a perusal of the petition, this Court finds that the description of the documents which were sought to be filed by the applicant through M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 were also stated in the said Miscellaneous Case. 21. Mere granting leave to the applicant to produce the original documents which were in his possession as stated in the petition does not mean that the said documents have been accepted by the Court. The admissibility of the said documents can be questioned by the opposite side at the time of marking and the relevancy of the said documents can also be gone into during the trial. Since the Election Petitioner filed the Election Petition challenging the result of 11th Sagolband Legislative Assembly Constituency election held on 4.3.2017, in order to prove his case, the Election Petitioner is bound to produce the said documents. Due opportunity of letting in evidence and marking of documents have to be given to the party to the proceedings in the Election Petition. Therefore, if the documents are not produced and/or exhibited in the main Election Petition, irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant. Hence, this Court is of the view that examination of the documents listed out in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 is irrelevant at this stage. 22. Prima facie, this Court finds that the documents relied upon by the applicant are necessary documents in the Election Petition. Hence, this Court is of the view that examination of the documents listed out in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 is irrelevant at this stage. 22. Prima facie, this Court finds that the documents relied upon by the applicant are necessary documents in the Election Petition. The grant of leave to produce the documents which were in possession of the party and the receipt thereof are all absolutely routine formality and in that course, the documents seek to rely upon the parties are very well essential for proper adjudication of the case. If any duplication is there, the trial Court is at liberty to refuse to permit the parties to mark the said documents. 23. With the aforesaid, the prayer of the applicant in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 is allowed, thereby granting leave to the applicant to produce the original of the documents in his possession and power listed out in the description of the documents annexed to M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018. 24. In the result, (a) The Review Petition(J2) No.1 of 2021 is allowed and the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 is reviewed. (b) Consequently, M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018 is allowed granting leave to the applicant to produce the original documents as listed out in the description of the documents annexed to M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018. (c) No costs.