Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040008352024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/315/2025 Hayeng Mangfi Age: 48 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tangu Mangfi resident of Nari Camp Village PO Sawa PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790102 VERSUS Kompu Dolo Age: 62 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tagung Rebe resident of Village Rebe PO and PS Chayang Tajo East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790102 ------------ Advocate for : Mudang Opo Advocate for : M G Singh appearing for Kompu Dolo: Advocate appearing for respectively. Linked Case : Election Pet./1/2024 Kompu Dolo Son of Late Tagung Rebe, resident of Village Rebe, PO and PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh 790102 VERSUS Hayeng Mangfi Page No.# 2/4 Son of Late Tangu Mangfi, resident of Nari Camp Village, PO Sawa, PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh 790102 Advocate for the Petitioner : Minki Boje, M G Singh,Rebika Rebe,Takar Bagang Advocate for the Respondent : D Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate, S K Deori,T Norbu,1 D Das, (Sr. Advocate),Mudang Opo,S Biswas,T Norbu,Mudang Opo BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 05.01.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Sandi K. Deori, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicant/returned candidate. Also heard Mr. M. G. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/election petitioner. 2. This application under Order VI Rule 16 & 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by respondent, seeking striking off the paragraphs Nos. 17 to 30 of the election petition on the ground that the pleadings contain allegations relating to corrupt practices, malpractices and election rigging, and also paragraphs 6.2.1, 6.2.2 and paragraph No. 8 of the election petition. 3. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant/returned candidate has confined the prayer and presses the application only insofar as paragraphs Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the election petition are concerned. He clarified that he is no longer pressing for rest of the paragraphs mentioned in this application including the paragraph Nos. 6.2.1, 6.2.2 and paragraph No. 8 of the election petition. In view of the above, the prayer in respect of the remaining paragraphs of this interlocutory application, stands rejected as not pressed. Page No.# 3/4 4. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party/election petitioner has filed an objection. However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel has fairly agreed to the striking-off the paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the election petition, without seeking amendment of the election petition. While making such submission, the election petitioner has further undertaken not to press the allegations contained in the aforesaid paragraph Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the election petition and not to adduce any evidence in relation to the above-noted paragraphs. In this regard he has also undertaken to file a separate interlocutory application, placing such undertaking on record within a period of 2(two) days from today. 5. It is relevant to note that earlier, the opposite party/election petitioner had filed an interlocutory application under Order XVI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being IA(c)292(AP) 2025, seeking deletion of Issue Nos. 7 and 9 pertains to allegation of corrupt practices, booth capturing and election rigging. The said application was allowed and issued Nos.7 and 9 was deleted. 6. On perusal of the paragraphs Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the election petition, it is evident that the said pleadings pertain to the very same allegations, which are no longer the subject-matter of adjudication in view of the order passed on 03.12.2025 in IA(c)292(AP)2025. 7. In view of the above and taking into account of the earlier deletion of the Issue Nos. 7 and 9 of the election petition which pertain to corrupt practices, booth capturing and election rigging, the nature of the pleadings contained in paragraph Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the election petition as well as the undertaking of the election petitioner, the continuation of the aforesaid paragraphs, would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily Page No.# 4/4 widen the scope of trial. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands allowed, in part. 8. The paragraphs Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the election petition is hereby struck-off. 9. As undertaken, the Opposite Party/election petitioner is directed to file an appropriate interlocutory application within a period of 2(two) days from today placing on record, his undertaking that he shall not press the allegations contained in paragraph Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the election petition and shall not adduce any evidence in respect of the aforesaid paragraphs. 10. It is made clear that the trial of the election petition shall proceed strictly on the basis of the remaining pleadings and surviving issues of the petition. 11. In view of the above, the interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant