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). Civil Appeal No. ____ of 2024 Page 5 of 30Submissions 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