Holding

A High Court acting as an election tribunal may grant leave to file a replication under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC only to clarify facts newly raised in the written statement and not to introduce new material facts or a new cause of action.

Summary

The election petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate on grounds of non‑disclosure of bank accounts, a vehicle, spouse's occupation and other material facts. The returned candidate’s written statement introduced explanations for these allegations, prompting the petitioner to seek leave to file a replication. The High Court granted leave, and the petitioner appealed that the replication was impermissible under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC allows a replication in an election petition and what limits apply. It held that the High Court, acting as an election tribunal, may grant leave for a replication only to clarify facts raised in the written statement, not to introduce new material facts or a new cause of action. Applying this test, the Court found the replication merely sought explanation of the defendant’s statements and therefore the High Court’s order was proper. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a replication, as a subsequent pleading under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, is permissible in proceedings of an election petition under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
Under what circumstances may a court grant leave to file such a replication without violating the statutory limits of the 1951 Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VIII Rule 9, s. Order VI Rule 1
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951s. 100, s. 81, s. 83, s. 84, s. 86(5), s. 87(1)

Subjects

Election petitionSubsequent pleadingReplicationGrant of leaveWritten statementFacts newly raisedSubstitute for amendmentCause of actionReturned candidate

Judgment

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 53 : 2024 INSC 391

Sheikh Noorul Hassan
v.
Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1389 of 2024)
08 May 2024
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI,
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the permissibility of filing of subsequent pleading-
replication as envisaged in Ord. VIII r. 9 CPC, during the course
of the proceeding of an election petition under the 1951 Act, and
in what circumstances leave to file such subsequent pleading may
be granted by an election tribunal/court.

Headnotes
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 – s. 87(1) – Procedure
before the High Court – Filing of replication by the election
petitioner to the written statement filed by the returned
candidate – Grant of leave by the High Court – When:
Held: As per s. 87(1), the High Court, acting as an Election
Tribunal, is vested with all such powers as are vested in a civil
court under the CPC and as such in exercise of its powers u/
Ord. VIII r. 9 CPC, is empowered to grant leave to an election
petitioner to file a replication – However, such leave is not to be
granted mechanically, the averments made in the plaint/election
petition, the written statement and the replication to be considered
– Upon consideration thereof, the Court may grant leave to
explain/clarify the facts newly raised or pleaded in the written
statement – Furthermore, while considering grant of leave, the
Court must bear in mind that replication is not needed to merely
traverse facts pleaded in the written statement, replication is not
a substitute for an amendment; and a new cause of action or plea
inconsistent with the plea taken in original petition/plaint is not to
be permitted in the replication – On facts, the material facts alleged
in the election petition were that while filing nomination papers the
returned candidate failed to disclose details of some of his bank
accounts, ownership of a motor vehicle, details of his spouse’s
profession/occupation, the investment made and the details of his
* Author
54 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

liability – Replication only sought to meet the explanation given
by the returned candidate in his writtem statement – Replication
did not seek to incorporate any new material facts or a new cause
of action to question the election – It only sought to explain the
averments made in the written statement – Thus, order of the High
Court granting leave to the election petitioner to file a replication
in answer to the new facts asserted in the written statement filed
by the returned candidate justified and well within the discretionary
jurisdiction of the High Court. [Paras 20-25]

Case Law Cited
Anant Construction (P) Ltd. v. Ram Niwas 1994 (31)
DRJ 205 : 1994 SCC OnLine Del 615; Bachhaj Nagar
v. Nilima Mandal and Anr. [2008] 14 SCR 621 : (2008)
17 SCC 491; K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and
Ors. [2008] 16 SCR 1117 : (2009) 1 SCC 354; Jeet
Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi [1999] Supp.
4 SCR 33 : (1999) 9 SCC 386; F.A. Sapa and others v.
Singora and others [1991] 2 SCR 752 : (1991) 3 SCC
375; Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh [2005] Supp. 5
SCR 817 : (2005) 13 SCC 511 – referred to.

List of Acts
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

List of Keywords
Election petition; Subsequent pleading; Replication; Grant of leave;
Written statement; Facts newly raised or pleaded; Substitute for
an amendment; Cause of action; Returned candidate.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1389 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2023 of the High Court
of Manipur at Imphal in MC(El. Pet.) No. 119 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Rakesh Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant.
Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., David Ahongsangbam, S Gunabanta
Meitei, B R Sharma, Raj Singh, Mohan Singh, Sanajaoba Pheiroijam,
Ms. Rajkumari Banju, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 55

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Manoj Misra, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Manipur
at Imphal1 dated 14.03.2023, whereby leave has been granted to the
election petitioner (the first respondent herein) to file a replication in
answer to the new facts asserted in the written statement filed by
the returned candidate (the appellant herein).
Factual Matrix
2. The first respondent filed an election petition seeking a declaration
that the election of the returned candidate, namely, the appellant
herein, is null and void under: (a) Section 100(1) (d) (i) (ii) and (iv);
and (b) Section 100 (1) (b) of the Representation of Peoples Act,
19512. In addition, thereto, a prayer was made to declare the election
petitioner as duly elected from the concerned legislative constituency3
of 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly.
3. In the election petition, it was alleged, inter alia, that the returned
candidate had failed to make necessary disclosures in the nomination
paper/the affidavit (i.e., Form 26) which had a material bearing on
the election result. In support of that allegation, particulars of such
non-disclosure / incorrect disclosure were detailed in the election
petition. These allegations, however, were not only traversed in the
written statement filed by the returned candidate (i.e. the appellant
herein) but additional facts were also laid out therein. As a result, the
election petitioner filed an application seeking leave to file a replication,
which came to be allowed by the impugned order of the High Court.
Impugned Order
4. The High Court vide impugned order allowed the application seeking
leave to file subsequent pleading while, inter alia, observing as follows:
“15. The petitioner has filed the election petition, inter alia,
on the ground that the first respondent has failed to disclose

1 High Court
2 1951 Act
3 4- Kshetrigao Assembly Constituency.
56 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the details – status of his bank accounts with respective
balances in Form 26. The first respondent has also failed
to disclose the details of liability and also the car bearing
DL4CNB4776 owned by him in Form 26.
16. On a reading of the election petition, it is seen that the
petitioner has also taken other grounds. However, in reply
to the ground for non-disclosure of the account details, the
first respondent replied in his written statement that the
said accounts opened for establishment of Self Help Group,
namely, Panthoibi SHG, Yaiphabi SHG. Paragraphs 12 and
17 of the written statement speak about the opening of the
bank accounts and also stated that some of the accounts
have NIL balance and were lying in a dormant condition at
the time of filing nomination papers. Therefore, there is no
necessity to disclose the same in Form 26. The opening
of the accounts for establishment of Self Help Groups,
according to the petitioner, is new plea and the petitioner
has to controvert the said facts by clarifying the relation
between the accounts and Self Help Groups.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the accounts are joint accounts which actually belonged
to the first respondent and others and nowhere mentioned
that these accounts are the social or charitable account.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
appears to merit consideration.
18. The petitioner being 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. It is
lawful to the petitioner to file an application to add to his
pleas already made in the election petition 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.
19. It is pertinent to note that the law is well settled that the
plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise a new plea under the
garb of filing rejoinder/replication or take a plea inconsistent
to the pleas taken by him in the plaint, nor the rejoinder
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 57

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

can be filed as a matter of right, even the Court can grant
leave only after applying its mind on the pleas taken in
the plaint and the written statement.
xxx
23. The specific plea of the petitioner is that the first
respondent has asserted some new facts in his written
statement, particularly, paragraphs 1(i) to (x), 10, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 18, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 19, 21 and 30 and it is
necessary for the petitioner to reply by filing the replication.
Though the first respondent contended that the petitioner
has filed the proposed replication and introducing new
facts and also trying to fill up the lacuna, nothing has been
produced to prove the same.
24. Admittedly, on a reading of the averments set out in
the subsequent pleading/replication, it is clear that they
are the clarification and amplification of the earlier pleading
made in the election petition and if the pleading of the
election petition is read conjointly with the pleading of the
replication, the pleading of replication are the addition of
facts of the earlier facts of the election petition and the
annexed documents are also related with the earlier facts
of the election petition. In other words, the replication of
the petitioner is to controvert the averments made in the
written statement to the election petition. That apart, prima
facie, the averments pleaded in the replication are not
contrary to the averments made in the election petition
and in fact, they are only explanatory to the plea taken
by the first respondent in the written statement.
25. The argument of the learned counsel for the first
respondent that the replication sought to be made by the
petitioner clearly violates the requirement of the provisions
of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and that the
petitioner sought to introduce new facts after the expiry
of 45 days, cannot be countenanced for the reason that
the petitioner does not insert any new facts. It appears
that the first respondent has filed his written statement on
4.8.2022 and petition to grant leave to file replication was
filed on 7.9.2022 within a reasonable time.
58 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

26. As stated supra, the statement made in the replication
are the denial of the statement made in the written
statement filed by the first respondent to the election
petition. If the same is received, no prejudice would be
caused to the other side, especially, the first respondent.
Moreover, it is the bounden duty of the election petitioner
to clarify the averments made by the first respondent in his
written statement. That apart, there is no bar for clarification
of the earlier pleading, which has already been taken in
the election petition by the petitioner.
xxx
31. …………. On a perusal of the replication filed by the
petitioner, this Court finds that the averments set out in
the replication are not contrary to the averments set out
in the election petition and these are only explanatory to
the plea advanced by the first respondent in the written
statement. Therefore, in order to explain/clarify the plea of
the first respondent and for fair trial of the election petition
and also in the interest of justice, this court is inclined to
grant leave to the petitioner to file replication.”
5. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, for the
appellant (i.e., the returned candidate) and Mr. Anupam Lal Das,
learned senior counsel, for the contesting respondent (i.e., the
election petitioner).
Submissions on behalf of Appellant/Returned Candidate
6. Mr. Shyam Divan appearing for the appellant, inter alia, submitted:
(i) The remedy of an election petition is a statutory remedy governed
by the provisions of the 1951 Act. There is no provision in the
1951 Act for filing a replication in response to a written statement.
Hence, there is no foundation in law for the impugned order;
(ii) Election petitioner’s replication is barred by the provisions of
section 814 (1) of the 1951 Act as it sets out a time-limit of 45

4 Section 81. Presentation of petitions.— (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be
presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 to
the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within 45 days from, but not earlier than
the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the
election and dates of that election are different, the latter of those two dates.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 59

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

days for filing an election petition. Taking into consideration new
allegations introduced through a replication would tantamount to
entertaining a time-barred petition. Allegations in paragraphs 15,
16, 18, 19, 22 and 23 of the Replication are new. Not only that,
new documents have been annexed by way of: (i) Ex.-A-18- List
of Self-Help groups in the concerned Assembly Constituency;
(ii) Ex.- A-19 and 20 - Status report of Income Tax demands;
and (iii) A-21- Original Copy of registration certificate of vehicle
number DL4CNB4776.
Submissions on behalf of First Respondent/ Election Petitioner
7. Per contra, Mr. Anupam Lal Das, inter alia, submitted:
(i) Section 875 of the 1951 Act provides that subject to the provisions
of the Act, and of any rules made thereunder, an election
petition shall be tried by the High Court in accordance with the
procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 19086
to try a suit. A written statement can be rebutted under Order
VIII Rule 97 of the CPC. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that
filing of a replication in the proceedings of an election petition
has no legal basis.
(ii) No new case has been introduced by way of the replication.
Though, by way of rebuttal of paragraphs 1(i) to (x) and

Explanation.- In this sub-section, elector means a person who was entitled to vote at the election, to
which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not.
(2) ****** (Omitted by Act 47 of 1966, w.e.f. 14.12.1966)
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents
mentioned in the petition, and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature
to be a true copy of the petition.
5 Section 87. Procedure before the High Court.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and of any
rules made 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 (5 of 1908) to the trial
of suits:
Provided that the High Court shall have the discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to
examine any witness or witnesses, if it is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness or witnesses is
not material for the decision of the petition or that the party tendering such witness or witnesses is doing
so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings.
(2) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall subject to the provisions of this Act,
be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition.
6 CPC
7 Order VIII Rule 9.— Subsequent pleadings.— No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a
defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counterclaim, and 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
30 days for presenting the same.
60 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

paragraphs 14, 18.1 and 18.2 of the written statement, which
introduced new facts, explanatory facts, by way of clarification
/ amplification of earlier pleading, have been pleaded, which is
permissible in law. These include: (a) details of bank accounts;
(b) details of tax demands/liability; and (c) ownership of vehicle,
which are referred to in the original petition. The replication only
seeks to rebut the explanation offered in the written statement
in respect of those accounts, demands and the vehicle.
Analysis
8. Having taken note of the rival submissions, before we proceed to
weigh the rival submissions in respect of the correctness of the
impugned order, it would be useful to consider the following issue:
Whether during the course of the proceeding of an election petition,
preferred under the provisions of the 1951 Act, subsequent pleading,
as envisaged in Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, is permissible? If yes, in
what circumstances leave to file such subsequent pleading may be
granted by an Election Tribunal/ Court?
Subsequent Pleading can be filed in an Election Petition.
9. Before we deal with the aforesaid issue, it would be useful to refer
to the provisions of the CPC in relation to pleadings. Order VI
Rule 1 of the CPC declares that pleading shall mean a plaint and
a written statement. Rule 9 of Order VIII specifically edicts that
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. Though, however, the
Court may at any time require a written statement or additional
written statement.
10. In Anant Construction (P) Ltd. v. Ram Niwas8, High Court of
Delhi, in an exhaustive judgment authored by R. C. Lahoti, J, as His
Lordship then was, dealt with the terms ‘Replication’ and ‘Rejoinder’,
as is commonly used for subsequent pleadings, as also as to when
leave for filing subsequent pleading may be granted by the Court.
After referring to various legal texts including Corpus Juris Secundum,
it was observed:

8 1994 (31) DRJ 205 : 1994 SCC OnLine Del 615
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 61

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

“12. A more detailed rather exhaustive statement of law is
to be found in CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM. It would be
useful to extract and reproduce the following paragraphs:
“A reply or replication is purely a defensive
pleading, the office or function of which is to
deny, or allege facts in avoidance of, new matters
alleged in the plea or answer and thereby join or
make issue as to such new matters. (para 184)
No reply or replication is necessary where the
issues are completed by, and no new matter
is set up, in the plea or answer. (para 185 a.)
At common law a replication is necessary where
a plea introduces new matter and concludes
with a verification; but under the codes, practice
acts, or rules of civil procedure of a number of
states a reply to new defensive matter is not
necessary or is necessary only when ordered by
the court. A reply to a counterclaim is generally
necessary; but under some code provisions
no reply or replication is required in any case.
(para 185 b.(1))
The discretion which the court possesses,
under some codes or practice acts, to direct
the plaintiff, on the defendant’s application, to
reply to new matter alleged as a defence by
way of avoidance will be exercised in favour of
granting the application where the new matter,
if true, will constitute a defence to the action
and granting the order will prevent surprise and
be of substantial advantage to the defendant
without prejudice to the plaintiff. (para 185 b.(ii))
A replication, however, is unknown in the
practice of a few states and in some states is
not permitted. So too, under a statute providing
that there shall be no reply except in enumerated
situations, a reply is not permissible in a case not
within one of the exceptions. Indeed, generally,
62 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

in jurisdictions wherein pleading is governed by
statutory provisions, plaintiff has no right to file a
reply when a reply is not required by statute or
order of court and a reply filed in a case where
no reply is required is to be treated as a nullity,
unless, and to the extent that, it constitutes an
admission by plaintiff, as discussed infra para
204.
Under the common law system of pleading,
plaintiff may, at his election, file a replication to a
special plea setting up an affirmative defence. On
the other hand, it is proper to reject a replication
to pleas which merely traverse allegations of the
declaration and set up no new matter. Where the
plea concludes to the contrary, plaintiff cannot
reply with any new matter but must either accept
it by a similiter or demur. So a good special
traverse can be answered only by joining issue
thereon and not by filing a replication. (para 191).
13. Decided cases in India use the term rejoinder loosely
for a reply or replication filed by the plaintiff in answer to
the defendant’s plea. Strictly speaking a reply filed by the
plaintiff (when permissible) is a replication. A pleading filed
by the defendant subsequent to replication is a rejoinder.
14. A replication is not to be permitted to be filed ordinarily,
much less in routine. A replication is permissible only in
three situations: (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. The plaintiff may also feel the
necessity of joining additional pleading to put forth his
positive case in reply to the defendant’s case but he shall
have to seek the leave of the court by presenting the
proposed replication along with an application seeking
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 63

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

leave to file the same. The court having applied its mind
to the leave sought for, may grant or refuse the leave.
Ordinarily the necessity of doing so would arise only for
‘confession and avoidance.’
Having observed so, a distinction between a plea requiring
amendment of the plaint and a plea sought to be introduced by
way of a replication was noticed as under:
“17. A distinction between a plea requiring amendment
of the plaint and a plea sought to be introduced by
replication shall have to be kept in view. A plea which
essentially constitutes the foundation of a claim made by
the plaintiff or which is essentially a part of plaintiff’s cause
of action cannot be introduced through a replication. As
already stated replication is always a defensive pleading
in nature. It is by way of confession and avoidance or
explanation of a plea raised in defence. It will be useful
to quote from Halsbury’s Laws of England (Volume 36,
para 62, page 48):-
“62. Necessity for amendment. The fact that a
party may not raise any new ground of claim,
or include in his pleadings any allegation or
fact inconsistent with his previous pleadings,
has been considered elsewhere. In order to
raise such a new ground of claim, or to include
any such allegation, amendment of the original
pleading is essential.”
17.1 In MSM Sharma versus Sri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959
SC 395, their Lordships refused to consider a plea raised
in rejoinder for the first time, observing:
“The case of bias of the Chief Minister
(respondent No.2) has not been made anywhere
in the petition and we do not think it would
be right to permit the petitioner to raise this
question, for it depends on facts which were not
mentioned in the petition but were put forward
in a rejoinder to which the respondent had no
opportunity to reply.”
64 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Finally, the Court summed up its conclusions as under:
“24. To sum up:
(1) ‘Replication’ and ‘rejoinder’ have well defined
meanings. Replication is a pleading by plaintiff in
answer to defendant’s plea. ‘Rejoinder’ is a second
pleading by defendant in answer to plaintiff’s reply
i.e. replication.
(2) To reach the avowed goal of expeditious disposal,
all interlocutory applications are supposed to be
disposed of soon on their filing. A delivery of copy of
the I.A. to the counsel for opposite party is a notice
of application. Reply, if any, may be filed in between,
if the time gap was reasonable enough, enabling
reply being filed.
(3) I.A.s which do not involve adjudication of substantive
rights of parties and / or which do not require
investigation or inquiry into facts are not supposed
to be contested by filing written reply and certainly
not by filing replication.
(4) A replication to written statement is not to be
filed nor permitted to be filed ordinarily, much
less in routine. A replication is permissible in
three situations:
i. when required by law;
ii. when a counter claim is raised or set off is
pleaded by defendant;
iii. when the court directs or permits a replication
being filed.
(5) Court would direct or permit replication being
filed when having scrutinised plaint and written
statement the need of plaintiff joining specific
pleading to a case specifically and newly raised
in written statement is felt. Such a need arises
for the plaintiff introducing a plea by way of
‘confession and avoidance’.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 65

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

(6) A plaintiff seeking leave of the Court has to
present before it the proposed replication. On
applying its mind the court may grant or refuse
the leave.
(7) A mere denial of defendant’s case by plaintiff
needs no replication. The plaintiff can rely on
rule of implied or assumed traverse and joinder
of issue.
(8) Subsequent pleadings are not substitute for
amendment in original pleadings.
(9) A plea inconsistent with the plea taken in original
pleadings cannot be permitted to be taken in
subsequent pleadings.
(10) A plea which is foundation of plaintiff’s case or
essentially a part of cause of action of plaintiff,
in absence whereof the suit will be liable to be
dismissed or the plaint liable to be rejected,
cannot be introduced for the first time by way
of replication.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Now we shall have a look at the provisions of the 1951 Act in respect
of addressing disputes regarding elections. Part VI of the 1951 Act,
which comprises of five Chapters, deals with disputes regarding
elections. Chapter I contains the definition clause (i.e., Section 79).
Chapter II comprising of Sections 80 to 85 deals with presentation of
election petitions to the High Court. Section 80 provides that no election
shall be called in question except by an election petition presented
in accordance with the provisions of Part VI. Section 80A, inter alia,
provides that the High Court shall have jurisdiction to try an election
petition. Section 81, inter alia, provides that an election petition calling
in question any election may be presented on one or more of the
grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101
to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector
within 45 days from the date of election. Section 829 specifies as to

9 Section 82. Parties to the petition. — A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition—
(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned
66 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

who shall be the parties to an election petition. Whereas, Section
8310, inter alia, specifies as to what an election petition must contain.
Section 8411 speaks of the reliefs which an election petitioner may
claim. Section 85, which dealt with the procedure on receiving petition,
has been omitted with effect from 14.12.1966 by Act No.47 of 1966.
12. Chapter III comprising of Sections 86 to 107 deals with trial of
Election Petitions. Section 8612, inter alia, provides that,— (a) the

candidates is void, claims a further declaration, that he himself or any other candidate has been
duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such for the
declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and
(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.
10 Section 83. Contents of petition.— (1) An election petition—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full statement
as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the
date and place of the commission of each such corrupt practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
[Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied
by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the
particulars thereof.]
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
same manner as the petition.
11 Section 84. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.— A petitioner may, in addition to claiming
a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claim a further declaration
that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected.
12 Section 86. Trial of election petitions.— (1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which
does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117.
Explanation. – An order of the High Court dismissing an election petition under this sub-section shall be
deemed to be an order made under clause (a) of section 98.
(2) As soon as may be after the election petition has been presented to the High Court, it shall be referred
to the judge or one of the judges who has or have been assigned by the Chief Justice for the trial of
election petitions under sub-section (2) of section 80 A.
(3) Where more election petitions than one are presented to the High Court in respect of the same
election, all of them shall be referred for trial to the same judge, who may, in his discretion, try them
separately or in one or more groups.
(4) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by him to the High Court within
14 days from the date of commencement of the trial and subject to any order as to security for costs,
which may be made by the High Court, being entitled to be joined as a respondent.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section and of section 97, the trial of a petition shall be
deemed to commence on the date fixed for the respondent to appear before the High Court and answer
the claim or claims made in the petition.
(5) The High Court may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise, as it may deem fit, allow the
particular particulars of any corrupt practice, alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such
manner, as may in its opinion, be necessary for ensuring affair and effective trial of the petition, but shall
not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt
practice, not previously alleged in the petition.
(6) The trial of an election petition shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice
in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the High Court finds the
adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
(7) Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to
conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election petition is presented to the High
Court for trial.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 67

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply
with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of
the 1951 Act; (b) the High Court may allow the particulars of any
corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified,
but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the
effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice, not previously
alleged in the petition; and (c) the election petition shall be tried
as expeditiously as possible and there shall be an endeavour to
conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the
election petition is presented to the High Court for trial. Section 87
provides that every election petition, subject to the provisions of the
Act, and of any rules made there under, be tried by the High Court,
as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable
under the CPC to the trial of suits. Sections 93 to 99 deal with other
procedural aspects which are not relevant for the controversy on
hand. Section 10013 enumerates the grounds for declaring election
to be void. Section 101 deals with a situation when a candidate
other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been
elected. Section 102 addresses a situation where during the trial

13 Section 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.— (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section
(2), if the High Court is of opinion –
(a) that on the date of his election, returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be
chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act,
1963 (20 of 1963); or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by
any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been properly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially
affected –
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other
than his election agent; or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which
is void; or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or
orders made under this Act,
the High Court shall declare the election of the return candidate to be void.
(2) If in the opinion of the High Court, returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his
election agent, of any corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied –
(a) that no such practice was committed at the election by the candidate or his election agent, and
every such correct practice was committed contrary to the orders, and without the consent, of the
candidate, or his election agent;
(b) ***** (omitted by Act 58 of 1958)
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission
of corrupt practises at the election; and
(d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate
or any of his agents,
then the High Court may decide that the election of the return candidate is not void.
68 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of an election petition, it appears that there is an equality of votes
between candidates. Sections 103 to 107 deal with other procedural
aspects which are not relevant for the case on hand.
13. Chapter IV deals with withdrawal and abatement of election petition,
whereas Chapter IVA deals with appeals. Chapter V deals with costs
and security of costs.
14. Part VII of the 1951 Act enlists corrupt practices and electoral offences.
15. A plain reading of Section 87 of the 1951 Act would indicate that,
subject to the provisions of the 1951 Act and of any rules made
thereunder, an election petition is to be tried, as nearly as may be,
in accordance with the procedure applicable under the CPC to the
trial of suits. Order VI Rule 1 of CPC defines pleading as a plaint
and a written statement. The object and purpose of pleadings is to
ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined.
Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions
that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have
an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the
issues before the Court for its consideration. A case not specifically
pleaded can be considered by the court only where the pleadings
in substance, though not in specific terms, contain the necessary
averments to make out a particular case, and the issues framed also
generally cover the question involved and the parties proceed on
the basis that such case was at issue and had led evidence thereon
(see Bachhaj Nagar v. Nilima Mandal and Anr.14).
16. Replication, though not a pleading as per Rule 1 of Order VI, is
permissible with the leave of the Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of
the CPC, which gives a right to file a reply in defence to set-off or
counter-claim set up in the written statement. However, if filing of
replication is allowed by the Court, it can be utilised for the purposes
of culling out issues. But mere non-filing of a replication would not
mean that there has been admission of the facts pleaded in the written
statement (see K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and Ors.15).
17. Section 83 of the 1951 Act mandates that an election petition must
contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the

14 [2008] 14 SCR 621 : (2008) 17 SCC 491, paragraphs 13 and 17
15 [2008] 16 SCR 1117 : (2009) 1 SCC 354, paragraph 29
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 69

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

petitioner relies. Additionally, an election petition should set forth full
particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including
as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged
to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of
the commission of each such practice. Since, an election petition is
to be dismissed under sub-section (1) of Section 86 if not filed within
the time specified in Section 81, such 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 averment made in the election petition cannot
be tried and cannot be made the subject matter of issues framed by
the court (See Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi16).
18. Though the High Court while dealing with an election petition exercises
powers under the CPC, those powers are subject to the provisions of
the 1951 Act and of any rules made thereunder. In consequence, the
general power of amendment of a pleading or of grant of leave to file
replication, as is otherwise available to a Court under Order VI Rule
17 and Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, is limited by the provisions of
the 1951 Act and the rules made thereunder. For example, sub-section
(5) of Section 86 of the 1951 Act provides that the High Court may
allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to
be amended or amplified in such manner as may, in its opinion, be
necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but
it shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the
effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously
alleged in the petition. The significance of sub-section (5) of Section
86 of the 1951 Act has been considered by a three-Judge Bench
of this Court in F.A. Sapa and others v. Singora and others17 in
the following terms:
“19. …….Section 86 (5) as it presently stands empowers
the High Court to allow the ‘particulars’ of any corrupt
practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified
provided the amendment does not have the effect of

16 [1999] Supp. 4 SCR 33 : (1999) 9 SCC 386, paragraph 45
17 [1991] 2 SCR 752 : (1991) 3 SCC 375
70 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

widening the scope of the election petition by introducing
particulars in regard to a corrupt practice not previously
alleged or pleaded within the period of limitation in
the election petition. In other words the amendment or
amplification must relate to particulars of a corrupt practice
already pleaded and must not be an effort to expand the
scope of the enquiry by introducing particulars regarding
a different corrupt practice not earlier pleaded. Only the
particulars of that corrupt practice of which the germ exists
in the election petition can be amended or amplified and
there can be no question of introducing a new corrupt
practice. It is significant to note that Section 86 (5) permits
‘particulars’ of any corrupt practice ‘alleged in the petition’
to be amended or amplified and not the ‘material facts’. It
is, therefore, clear from the trinity of clauses (a) and (b) of
Section 83 and sub-section (5) of Section 86 that there is a
distinction between ‘material facts’ referred to in clause (a)
and ‘particulars’ referred to in clause (b) and what Section
86 (5) permits is the amendment / amplification of the latter
and not the former. Thus, the power of amendment granted
by section 86 (5) is relatable to clause (b) of Section 83 (1)
and is coupled with a prohibition, namely, the amendment
will not relate to a corrupt practice not already pleaded in
the election petition. The power is not relatable to clause
(a) of Section 83 (1) as the plain language of Section 86
(5) confines itself to the amendments of ‘particulars’ of
any corrupt practice alleged in the petition and does not
extend to ‘material facts’…..”
19. As to what meaning is to be ascribed to the expression ‘material
facts’, and what a pleading must contain, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh18 observed as under:
“48. The expression “material facts” has neither been
defined in the Act nor in the Code. According to the
dictionary meaning, “material” means “fundamental”, “vital”,
“basic”, “cardinal”, “central”, “crucial”, “decisive”, “essential”,
“pivotal”, “indispensable”, “elementary”, or “primary”

18 [2005] Supp. 5 SCR 817 : (2005) 13 SCC 511
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 71

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

[Burton’s Legal Thesaurus (3rd Edition), p.349]. The phrase
“material facts”, therefore, may be said to be those facts
upon which a party relies for its claim or defence. In other
words, “material facts” are facts upon which the plaintiff’s
cause of action or the defendant’s defence depends. What
particulars could be said to be material facts would depend
upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal
application can be laid down. It is, however, absolutely
essential that all basic and primary facts which must be
proved at the trial by the party to establish the existence
of a cause of action or defence are material facts and
must be stated in the pleading by the party.
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.”
20. In light of the analysis above, we are of the view that by virtue of the
provisions of Section 87 (1) of the 1951 Act, the High Court, acting
as an Election Tribunal, subject to the provisions of the 1951 Act
and the rules made thereunder, is vested with all such powers as
are vested in a civil court under the CPC. Therefore, in exercise of
72 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

its powers under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, it is empowered to
grant leave to an election petitioner to file a replication.
21. However, such leave is not to be granted mechanically. The Court
before granting leave must consider the averments made in the
plaint/election petition, the written statement and the replication.
Upon consideration thereof, if the Court feels that to ensure a fair
and effective trial of the issues already raised, the plaintiff/election
petitioner must get opportunity to explain/clarify the facts newly raised
or pleaded in the written statement, it may grant leave upon such
terms as it deems fit. Further, while considering grant of leave, the
Court must bear in mind that,— (a) a replication is not needed to
merely traverse facts pleaded in the written statement; (b) a replication
is not a substitute for an amendment; and (c) a new cause of action
or plea inconsistent with the plea taken in original petition/plaint is
not to be permitted in the replication.
Grant of leave justified
22. In the instant case, the material facts alleged in the election petition,
inter alia, were that while filing nomination papers the returned
candidate had failed to disclose: (a) details of some of his bank
accounts (i.e. six in number); (b) ownership of a motor vehicle, which
stood registered in his name; (c) details of his spouse’s profession
or occupation; (d) the investment made by him on the land, by way
of development, construction etc.; and (e) the details of his liability
owed to the Bank.
23. In his written statement, the returned candidate (appellant herein)
before giving a para-wise reply to the averments made in the
election petition, made certain explanatory/preliminary averments
in paragraph 1. Thereafter, in paragraph 10, it was averred that
the returned candidate had filed two nomination papers along with
form 26 affidavits and both were accepted after proper scrutiny on
9.2.2022. In paragraph 12, the returned candidate gave an explanation
for bank account number 920010008072418 maintained with the
Axis Bank. The explanation was to the effect that this account was
of a self-help group for the purposes of providing aid to those who
were affected by COVID-19 pandemic. In paragraph 13 a similar
explanation was offered in respect of another bank account number
920010008661144 maintained with the Axis Bank. In paragraph 14, it
was averred that the aforesaid bank accounts actually did not belong
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 73

Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh & Ors.

to the returned candidate, his spouse or dependents, but were for
social and charitable purpose, and that the returned candidate was
associated with those accounts in a fiduciary capacity. It was alleged
that those accounts were actually of self-help groups therefore, the
returned candidate was under no obligation to disclose the amounts
of money available in those accounts. In paragraph 15 of the written
statement, an explanation was offered in respect of Axis Bank account
number 910010004837498. It was claimed that the account had a
zero balance and was lying dormant at the time of filing nomination
papers, therefore no disclosure was warranted. The returned
candidate also denied that there was an existing liability against that
account. Similarly, in paragraph 16 of the written statement it was
stated that Axis Bank account number 915020012865061 had zero
balance and was lying dormant at the time of filing nomination paper,
therefore no disclosure was warranted. In paragraph 18 of the written
statement, fact with regard to filing of a writ petition to protect rights
of forest dwellers was disclosed, and in paragraph 18.1, in respect
of ICICI Bank account number 264301001639, explanation was
offered to the effect that it was a joint bank account for the benefit
of victim families dwelling in the forest, and that the account was in
the name of certain other persons whereas the returned candidate
had signed in the account opening form as a patron. In paragraph
18.2, a further statement was made that the bank account did not
belong to the returned candidate, his spouse, or dependents, and
that the account was for social/charitable use wherein the returned
candidate had associated in a fiduciary capacity of a coordinator/
facilitator. Further, to substantiate the said plea, the details of the
56 affected poor families were given. In paragraph 18.3, another
defence in respect of those accounts was taken. In paragraph 19,
it was averred that the motor vehicle of which disclosure was not
made by the returned candidate had been gifted to one person
in the year 2012, therefore there was no concealment in respect
of that vehicle. In paragraph 21 of the written statement, it was
stated that since value of immovable property was disclosed, there
was no separate disclosure as regards the amount spent in the
construction of residential house standing thereupon. Thus, there
was no concealment. In paragraph 30 of the written statement, apart
from a denial of the averments made in the paragraph of the election
petition under reply, there was a statement with regard to filing of
two nomination papers along with two affidavits.
74 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

24. In the application seeking leave to file replication, the election
petitioner stated that the returned candidate had, in paragraphs 1
(I) to (x), 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 19, 21 and
30, stated new facts of which a reply was required, therefore leave
to file a replication be granted. In the replication, in paragraph 15,
the election petitioner dealt with account number 920010008072418
maintained with the Axis Bank. Paragraph 16 of the replication dealt
with account number 920010008661144, whereas paragraph 17
dealt with account numbers 920010008072418, 920010008661144.
Similarly in paragraph 18 account number 910010004837498
was discussed and a report in respect of demand analysis and
recoverability status was provided in a tabular form. In paragraph
19 account number 915020012865061 was discussed. Likewise, in
paragraph 22, account number 264301001639 of the ICICI bank was
discussed. In paragraph 23 again, account number 264301001639
was discussed. In paragraph 24, the registration of the vehicle in the
name of the returned candidate was reiterated, and the claim that
the vehicle was gifted in the year 2012 was denied. In paragraph 25,
it was stated that whether the disclosure already made in respect
of profession or occupation of spouse was proper or not, is for the
Court to decide. Similarly, in paragraph 26 it was stated that the
returned candidate was obliged to disclose the amount invested in
the construction of residential house.
25. It is clear from above that the non-disclosure of bank accounts,
alleged in the election petition, was sought to be explained by the
returned candidate in his written statement. The replication only
sought to meet that explanation. Similarly, the reply in the written
statement in respect of other material facts pleaded in the election
petition was sought to be dealt with, by way of explanation, in the
replication. The replication does not seek to incorporate any new
material facts or a new cause of action to question the election. It
only seeks to explain the averments made in the written statement.
Thus, in our view, leave to file replication was justified and well within
the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court.
26. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.

Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case:
Appeal dismissed.