Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040008762024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/122/2025 Dr Mohesh Chai Age: 51 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tankakso Chai resident of T Chai residence Chai Colony Tezu PO and PS Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh 792001 VERSUS Karikho Kri Age: 51 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Sotri Kri resident of Kri Niwas Telluliang Village PO and PS Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh 792001 ------------ Advocate for : Marge Doji Advocate for : Adam Tatak appearing for Karikho Kri: Advocate appearing for respectively. Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 15.05.2025 . Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the applicant/ respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. A. Tatak, learned counsel for the opposite party/Election Petitioner. By filing this Interlocutory Application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicant has prayed for amendment of the I.A. (Civil) No.71/2025, in the Election Petition No.08(AP)/2024, on account of typographical errors crept in the said application. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the applicant/ respondent No.1, by pointing out to the relevant cause title and paragraph of the I.A. (Civil) No.71/2025, particularly, in the cause title and para 11, submits that after the word ‘the’ and before the word ‘disclosing’, inadvertently the word ‘not’ was left out and in para 11, the name ‘16-Yachuli’ has been wrongly mentioned instead of “44-Tezu”. He submits that the amendment sought for in the Interlocutory Application in the cause title and para 11 will not change the character of the application and as such prays for amendment of the Interlocutory Application, being I.A. (Civil) No.71/2025. Mr. A. Tatak, learned counsel for the opposite party/Election Petitioner fairly submits that since the amendment sought for is only of typographical errors, he would not have serious objection of such amendment. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering that the amendment sought for is only of typographical errors as well as the prayer not being objected to by the learned counsel for the opposite party/Election Petitioner, I am of the considered view that the application for Page No.# 3/3 amendment to the I.A. (Civil) No.71/2025, in the Election Petition No.08(AP)/2024, is deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application stands allowed and the applicant is allowed to file an amended application. The applicant to file the amended petition, within a period of one week. This Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant