El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 with El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 Page 1 Item No. 15-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL 1. El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 Seram Neken Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o. (Late) Seram Mangi Singh, resident of Singjamei Wangma Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin-795008. …Petitioner -Versus- 1. Shri Thongam Bishwajit Singh, aged about 46-years, S/o. Thongam Kumar Singh, resident of Thongju Part-I, Ningomthong, P.O. Singjamei & P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur-795008. 2. Shri Sanglakpam Preshyojit Sharma, aged about 37 years, S/o. Sanglakpam Debabarta Sharma, resident of Khongman Zone-II, P.O. Singjamei & P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur- 795008. 3. The Returning Officer, 5-Thongju Assembly Constituency having its office at the Office of the Block Development Officer, Kshetrigao CD Block, Room No. 3, 1st Floor, Academic Block, SIRD, DC Office Complex, Imphal East, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795005. …Respondent/s El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 Shri Sanglakpam Preshyojit Sharma, aged about 37 years, son of Sanglakpam Debabarta Sharma, resident of Khongman Zone-II, P.O. Singjamei, District Imphal East, Manipur-795008. …Petitioner -Versus- 1. Shri Thongam Biswajit Singh, aged about 46 years, son of Thongam Kumar Singh, resident of Thongju Part-I, Ningomthong, P.O. Singjamei, District Imphal East, Manipur- 795008 and an elected Member of 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly from 5-Thongju Assembly Constitution as set up by BJP. 2. Shri Seram Neken Singh, aged about 47 years, son of (L) Seram Mangi Singh, resident of Singjamei Wangma Kshetri Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal East District, Manipur-795008, a candidate of 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly as set up by Indian National Congress. …Respondent/s LAISHRA M DHAKESH ORI DEVI Digitally signed by LAISHRAM DHAKESHORI DEVI Date: 2026.09.11 14:44:43 +05'30' El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 with El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 Page 2 With El.Recr.Pet. No. 20 of 2022 El.Recr.Pet. No. 2 of 2022 MC(El.Pet.) No. 102 of 2022 MC(El.Pet.) No. 108 of 2022 -B E F O R E- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH For the Petitioner :: --- For the Respondents :: Mr.H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Gunabanta, Advocate Date of Hearing :: 10-09-2026 Date of Order :: 10-09-2026 O R D E R ( O R A L) Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. [2] This order is to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceeding dated 17-08-2026 which reads as under: “[1] This order is to be read in continuation of and in conjunction with the earlier proceeding dated 29-07-2026, which reads as under : “As the determination of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 and El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 as well as the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in both the El.Recr.Pet. No. 20 of 2022 and El.Recr.Pet. No. 2 of 2022 has been allowed, the said election petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the said El.Recr.Pet. remains unrepresented. In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue fresh notice upon all the petitioners in El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 and El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 and upon respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the El.Recr.Pet. No. 20 of 2022 and El.Recr.Pet. No. 2 of 2022, returnable within 2(two) weeks. List these cases after 2(two) weeks’ on 17.08.2026 along with the service report for effecting service on the said petitioner/respondents.” El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 with El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 Page 3 [2] No one appeared on behalf of the petitioners in El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 and El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 as well as respondent No. 1 & 2 in the El.Recr.Pet. No. 20 of 2022. [3] Mr. Chinglemba, learned counsel representing the advocate on record appearing for the respondent No. 1 in both the aforesaid election petitions and the petitioner in both the El.Recr. Petition is before this Court. [4] Pursuant to the above quoted proceeding dated 29-07- 2026, fresh notice has been issued upon the said election petitioners/respondents No. 1 & 2 in El.Recr.Petition and notice has been duly served upon them. The factum of taking steps and serving of fresh notice upon the aforesaid election petitioners/respondents No. 1 & 2 in the El.Recr. petitions are clearly reflected in the Office note dated 30-07-2026 and 14-08-2026. The scan copy of the same are reproduced hereunder: [5] With an intention of giving one last opportunity to the above mentioned election petitioners as well as the respondents No. 1 & 2 in the El.Recr.Petition, Registry is directed to list it again on 10-09-2026. El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 with El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 Page 4 [6] It is made clear that if above mentioned election petitioners/ respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the El.Petition, failed to appear before this Court on the next date, appropriate order as deem fit and appropriate will be passed.” [3] Today also, when these matters are taken up, the Election Petitioners in both the El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 and El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 remains unrepresented. Likewise, all the respondents in El.Recr.Pet. No. 20 of 2022 and El.Recr.Pet. No. 2 of 2022 also remain unrepresented. [4] Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Mr. Thongam Biswajit Singh, who is the respondent No. 1 in both the above mentioned two Election Petitions and the petitioner in both the Election Recr. Petitions. [5] The learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 in both the two Election Petitions submitted that as the petitioners in both the two Election Petitions remains unrepresented, the said two Election Petitions deserves to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera -vrs. B.L. Shanker & others” reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 631. [6] In the case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera -vrs. B.L. Shanker & others (Supra), it has been inter alia, held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under : “15. We proceed next to examine whether the election petition could be dismissed in the absence of the election petitioner and whether the appellant could apply for its restoration though he himself was not the election petitioner. The basis of the appellant's contention that the election petition cannot be dismissed for the absence of the election petitioner is that once an election petition is filed, it concerns the entire constituency. Purity of the electoral process in a democracy, it is contended, is of paramount importance and an election petition cannot be permitted to be dismissed for default inasmuch as that would lead to situations brought about by manipulation, undue influence, fraud or winning over of the election petitioner. The second respondent's counsel has not disputed before us and rightly in our view that purity of the electoral process is paramount in a democracy and an election petition should not be permitted El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 with El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 Page 5 to be abandoned by undue influence or pressure over the election petitioner. It may be pointed out that there was no allegation of undue influence or pressure over the election petitioner to justify his conduct in this case. It is relevant to mention that the second respondent who was the elected candidate was expelled from the Lok Sabha in December 1978, and in August 1979, the Lok Sabha to which respondent 2 had been elected was dissolved. It was after these supervening events that in October 1979 the request to delete prayer (c) was made and the other orders followed. This explanation given by respondent 2's counsel to justify the conduct of the election petitioner is a relevant feature. 16. There is no support in the statute for the contention of the appellant that an election petition cannot be dismissed for default. The appellant contended that default of appearance or non-prosecution of the election petition must be treated as on par with withdrawal or abatement and, therefore, though there is no clear provision in the Act, the same principle should govern and the obligation to notify as provided in Section 110 or 116 of the Act should be made applicable. We see no justification to accept such a contention. Non-prosecution or abandonment is certainly not withdrawal. Withdrawal is a positive and voluntary act while non- prosecution or abandonment may not necessarily be an act of volition. It may spring from negligence, indifference, inaction or even incapacity or inability to prosecute. In the case of withdrawal steps are envisaged to be taken before the Court in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In the case of non-prosecution or abandonment, the election petitioner does not appear before the Court and obtain any orders. We have already indicated that the Act is a self-contained statute strictly laying down its own procedure and nothing can be read in it which is not there nor can its provisions be enlarged or extended by analogy. In fact, the terms of Section 87 of the Act clearly prescribe that if there be no provision in the Act to the contrary, the provisions of the Code would apply and that would include Order 9, Rule 8 of the Code, under which an election petition would be liable to be dismissed if the election petitioner does not appear to prosecute the election petition. 17. In many cases it has been held that an election petition can be dismissed for default. A Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Jugal Kishore v. Dr. Baldev Parkash, had occasion to consider this question when Grover, J. delivering the judgment of the Court spoke thus: It has been repeatedly said that an election petition once filed is not a contest only between the parties thereto but continues for the benefit of the whole constituency. It is for that purpose that in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provisions have been made in Sections 109 and 110 relating to withdrawal of an election petition and Sections 112 and 116 relating to abatement of such a petition the effect of which is that the petition cannot come to an end by the withdrawal thereof by the death of the petitioner or by the death or withdrawal of opposition by the respondent, but is liable in such cases to be continued by any person who might have been a petitioner. There is nothing in the entire Act providing or indicating that a similar procedure is to be followed in the event of a petitioner failing to prosecute the petition. Such failure can be due to various causes. The petitioner can, by force of circumstances, be genuinely rendered helpless to prosecute the El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 with El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 Page 6 petition. For instance, he may find that his financial condition has suddenly worsened and that he can no longer afford the expenses of litigation He may even, owing to exigencies of business or vocation or profession, have to go to such a distant place from the seat of the High Court where the election petition is being tried that he may find it impossible to prosecute the petition in a proper manner. There would be two courses open to him and that will depend entirely on his volition. He can either file an application for withdrawal of the petition disclosing the circumstances which have brought about such a situation in which case there would be no difficulty in following the procedure laid down in Sections 109 and 110 of the Act, or he may choose to simply absent himself from the Court or cease to give any instructions to the counsel engaged by him or fail to deposit the process-fee and the diet-money for witnesses or take the necessary steps for summoning the witnesses in which case the Court will have no option but to dismiss the election petition under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which would be applicable to the election petitions in the absence of any express provisions in the Act. The dismissal will have to be under the provisions contained in Order 9 or Order 17 of the Code. It is quite clear that there is no distinct provision in the Act laying down any particular or special procedure which is to be followed when the petitioner chooses to commit default either in appearance or in production of evidence or generally in prosecuting the petition. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would, therefore, be applicable under Section 87 of the Act. I am further of the opinion that any argument which could be pressed and was adopted for saying that the inherent powers of the Court could not be exercised in such circumstances would be of no avail now as the High Court is a Court of Record and possesses all the inherent powers of a court while trying election petitions. It is relevant to note the observations of Hidayatullah, C.J. in Sunderlal Mannalal v. Nandramdas Dwarkadas, where he indicated: (AIR p. 261, para 5) Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses... 18. Similar view bas been expressed by another Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Duryodhan v. Sitaram. A four-Judge Bench of this Court in Rajendra Kumari Bajpai v. Ram Adhar Yadav, referred to the Punjah case. Fazal Ali, J. speaking on behalf of the Court quoted a portion of the judgment of Grover, J. which we have cited above and said: (SCC p. 453, para 10) We fully approve of the line of reasoning adopted by the High Court in that case. It, therefore, follows that the Code is applicable in disposing of an election petition when the election petitioner does not appear or take steps to El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 with El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 Page 7 prosecute the election petition. Dismissal of an election petition for default of appearance of the petitioner under the provisions of either Order IX or Order XVII of the Code would, therefore, be valid and would not be open to challenge on the ground that these provisions providing for dismissal of the election petition for default do not apply.” [7] In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the election petition can be dismissed for non prosecution as provided under Order IX, or Order XVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). [8] In view of the failure on the part of the Election Petitioner to prosecute the aforesaid two Election Petitions and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera -vrs.- B.L. Shanker & others (Supra), this Court is on the considered view that there is force and substance in the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 in both the aforesaid two Election Petitions. Accordingly, the two Election Petitions, viz. El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 and El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 are hereby dismissed for non prosecution. [9] The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the two Election Recr. Petition No. 2 of 2022 and Election Recr. Petition No. 20 of 2022 also submitted that as the connected two Election Petitions have been dismissed for non prosecution, the present two Election Recrimination Petitions has been rendered infructuous and the same can be closed as infructuous. [10] Recording the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the aforesaid two Election Recrimination Petitions, both the two Election Recrimination Petitions stands closed as infructuous. [11] Consequently, the connected applications being MC(El.Pet.) No. 102 of 2022 and MC(El.Pet.) No. 108 of 2022 also stands closed. JUDGE El.Pet. No. 4 of 2022 with El.Pet. No. 27 of 2022 Page 8 Dhakeshori