[Cites 45, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Amol Dhondiba Khatal vs Vijay Alias Balasaheb Bhausaheb Thorat ... on 30 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:13507
(1) EP-02-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 162 OF 2025
(EXHIBIT-23)
IN
ELECTION PETITION NO.02 OF 2025
Amol Dhondiba Khatal
Age: 42 years, Occu: Politician
Address: At Post Sangamner,
Taluka Sangamner, Dist. Ahilyanagar. ...APPLICANT
(Orig. Res. No.1)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Vijay Alias Balasaheb Bhausaheb Thorat
Age: 71 years, Occu: Agri.
R/o. Sudarshan, 7 - Shivajinagar,
Sangamner, Tal. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahilyanagar ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] Amol Dhondiba Khatal
Age: 41 years, Occu: Business
Saiharsh, Near Pasaydan Colony,
Atharv Colony, Ghulewadi Road
Sangamner, Tal. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
2] Abdulaziz Ahmedsharif Vohara
Age: 49 years, Occu: Business,
Vijaynagar, Kuran Road,
Sangamner, Tal. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
(2) EP-02-2025
3] Yogesh Manohar Suryawanshi
Age: 34 years, Occu: Labour,
Old Akole Naka, Maliwada,
Sangamner, Tal. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
4] Suryabhan Baburao Gore
Age: 59 years, Occu: Business,
Gaothan, At-Mendhwan,
Post-Kauthe Kamleshwar,
Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
5] Avinash Haushiram Bhor
Age: 48 years, Occu: Agri.,
Trimurti Banglow,
Anand Colony, Chitanya Nagar,
Sangamner, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
6] Kaliram Bahiru Popalghat
Age: 72 years, Occu: Agri.,
At Post - Sakur, Tal. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
7] Gaikwad Bhagwat Dhondiba
Age: 58 years, Occu: Agri.,
At-Kasare, Po-Kauthe-Kamleshwar,
Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
8] Pradeep Vitthal Ghule
Age: 28 years, Occu: Business,
133/42-Keshav Nagar, Gunjalwadi,
Sangamner, Tal. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
(3) EP-02-2025
9] Bharat Sambhaji Bhosale
Age: 40 years, Occu: Business,
110, DhabeVasti, Konchi,
Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
10] Shashikant Vinayak Darole
Age: 45 years, Occu: Agri.,
Rajapur Road, Navnath Mandir,
DaroleVasti, Gunjalwadi,
Dholewadi, Tal. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
11] Ajay Ganpat Bhadange
Age: 27 years, Occu: Business & Social Activist,
At Post Rajur, Tal. Akole,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
12] Dattatraya Raosaheb Dhage
Age: 34 years, Occu: Business,
At/Po-Khandgaon, Tal. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahilyanagar. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate alongwith Shubham S. Kote i/by Ashwin
V. Hon, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate alongwith Amit A. Karande and V.R.
Dhorde i/by R.L. Kute, Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
Ms. Nikita N. Gore, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. Shaikh Taher Mobin H. Advocate for respondent No.6
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 09th JANUARY 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th MARCH 2026.
(4) EP-02-2025
J U D G M E N T :
-
1. Heard Mr. Hon, the learned Senior Advocate for the
Applicant/orig. Respondent No.1, Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior
Advocate for Respondent No.1/original election petitioner, Ms. Gore, the
learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 and Mr. Shaikh, the learned
Advocate for Respondent No.6.
2. Application No.162 of 2025 (Exhibit-23) is filed by a returned
candidate/Respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.02/2025. The
Election Petition is filed against the present applicant and others by the
petitioner/defeated candidate in the election to the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly from Constituency No.217 - Sangamner. The other
respondents are the persons who also contested the said election, and
therefore, they have been made parties to the Election Petition. The
petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the election of Respondent
No.1 is void and has also further prayed that he being a candidate
securing the second highest votes in the election, he be declared as
elected from the said Constituency in terms of Section 84 read with
(5) EP-02-2025
Section 101(b) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short
"the Act of 1951").
3. The facts, giving rise to the Election Petition necessary to
appreciate this application are that on 15.10.2024, the general election
to the Legislative Assembly for Constituency-217 Sangamner declared
by the Election Commission was as under:-
SCHEDULE DATE
Date of issue of Gazette Notification 22.10.2024
Last date of filing nominations 29.10.2024
Date of Scrutiny of nominations 30.10.2024
Last Date for the withdrawal of candidatures 04.11.2024
Date of Polling 20.11.2024
Date of Counting 23.11.2024
4. The returned candidate filed his nomination form on 29.10.2024.
The results were declared on 23.11.2024, wherein the Respondent No.1
is declared elected. Thereafter, the petitioner collected the certified
copies of the documents necessary to file election petition on
03.01.2025. The Returning Officer refused to give information, including
(6) EP-02-2025
copy of Form 7-A. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application under
Right to Information Act and collected certain documents from Goods
and Service Tax (for short "GST") Department, the information about
professional taxes, dues etc. of the returned candidate. It is, thereafter,
the petition came to be filed.
5. The main grounds on which the Election Petition is filed are as
follows:
(i) The returned candidate happened to be a partner in one
partnership firm namely, Nilkamal, however, he has not
disclosed this fact and the Assets and Liabilities of the said
Firm. He has not paid the Professional Taxes for the said firm.
The returned candidate thus committed an act of corrupt
practice attracting Section 100(1)(b) of the Act of 1951.
(ii) The election is materially affected by improper
acceptance of Nomination Form, attracting Section 100(1)(d)
(i) of the Act of 1951 as the form was not complete.
(iii) The election is materially affected by non-compliance
with the provisions of Constitution of India and the Act of
(7) EP-02-2025
1951 by not following Rules and the Orders made under
the said Act. The election is, therefore, void under
Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951.
(iv) The returned candidate has unduly influenced the voters
and secured the votes. The election is, therefore,
materially affected under Section 101(b) of the Act of
1951.
6. It is stated that the returned candidate, while filing the nomination
paper alongwith Form 26 - affidavit required under Section 33 of the Act
of 1951 read with Rule 4 and 4(A) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, has
suppressed the fact that he was a partner of a firm which was in arrears
of payment of taxes. It is alleged that the returned candidate has
registered himself under Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades,
Callings and Employments Act, 1975 (for short " Professional Tax Act,
1975"). A certificate was issued to him on 23.04.2015 which is stated to
be still active. The said information is collected from the website of the
State GST portal. It is alleged that the Respondent No.1 has not paid
professional tax since 2015. The total dues are stated to be Rs.25,000/-
for the period from 2015-2016 to 2024-2025 on which now interest is
(8) EP-02-2025
shown to be Rs.29,650/-. Thus the total arrears with interest of
Rs.54,650/-. Thus, he has suppressed the fact of being a partner in the
firm namely, Nilkamal.
7. By suppressing all these facts, the returned candidate has shown
the source of income as business through Sai Enterprises. However, the
said Firm is not registered under the Professional Tax Act, 1975, whereas
only Firm registered is Nilkamal for tax purpose. The petitioner further
gathered the information that, as per website, the returned candidate
has voluntarily cancelled his GST registration by filing an application.
However, Sai Enterprises is not a registered firm. Since these matters
were within the personal knowledge of the returned candidate, the
returned candidate ought to have disclosed the same in his affidavit.
Though there were dues on Nilkamal, the returned candidate in the
nomination form has shown the Government dues as "Nil".
8. It is further alleged that because of these suppression, the voters
could not take informed decision. This suppression has therefore
materially affected the result of an election, alleging violation of Section
(9) EP-02-2025
123(2) of the Act of 1951 read with Rule 4(A) of Form 26 of the
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It is alleged that when there is non-
disclosure of assets and liabilities, it need not be shown that the election
is materially affected. It is stated that the total votes counted were
2,20,721, and 2,19,111 votes were counted excluding the rejected votes
i.e. 140 and NOTA 1470 votes i.e. None of the Above. The margin is only
of 10,560 votes. The count of votes of remaining 11 candidates i.e.
respondent Nos. 2 to 12 is only 4899. It is thus stated that, since the
margin is only of 10,560 votes, it is clear that the result is materially
affected because of suppression of facts. It is also stated that the
nomination form was improperly accepted and even if the election is not
materially affected, still for wrong reception of the form, the election
needs to be declared as void. It is submitted that, for want of documents
from the GST Department under Right to Information Act, those only
relied upon as and when provided by the authorities.
9. The application Exh. 23 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the Respondent No.1/returned
( 10 ) EP-02-2025
candidate, praying for summary dismissal of the election petition under
Section 86(1) of the Act of 1951. It is the case that the petitioner has not
stated as to how the election is materially affected under Section 100 (1)
(d) (i) to (iv) of the Act of 1951. No any calculation is given as to how
many votes were influenced by the Act or inaction on the part of the
returned candidate. Nothing is specifically pleaded to show that the form
was wrongly accepted. There is no sufficient pleading to show that the
election is materially affected.
10. As regards allegation of corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b)
it must be shown that those are committed after the candidate became a
contesting candidate i.e. only from the date of publication of the list of
contesting candidate till the date of vote. There is no corrupt practice
committed by the returned candidate falling under Section 123 of the
Act of 1951. The allegations are beyond the scope and ambit of Section
123 of the Act and cannot be said to be a corrupt practice for the
purpose of Section 81 and Section 100(1)(b) of the Act of 1951. No
material facts are pleaded showing that the corrupt practices have taken
( 11 ) EP-02-2025
place. No date and place of commission of such corrupt practices are
mentioned. There is no complete cause of action disclosed. No proper
affidavit in Form 25 is filled under Rule 94-A of the Rules with the
election petition. No source of information is furnished for each of the
alleged corrupt practices. These things are fatal to the election petition
and the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be summarily
dismissed.
11. On the limitation, it is stated that the results were declared on
23.11.2024. The petition is filed on 03.01.2025. On the date of filing the
petition, it was incomplete. The objections were raised on 06.01.2025
stating that material documents were not annexed to the petition. It is,
thereafter, the petitioner filed an amendment application to add and
produce the documents to remove the office objections raised by the
office of the Court. Thus, the petition is filed beyond 45 th day. No true
copy of the petition is served on returned candidate. The copies are not
attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be true copies of
the petition. Even the petitioner applied for production of certain
( 12 ) EP-02-2025
documents after a period of 45 days was over from the date of election.
Those documents were also not served upon returned candidate. There
is no compliance of Section 100(1)(d) of the Act of 1951. No clear
averment is made as to how the election is materially affected. The
prayer clauses (A) and (B) of the petition deserves to be struck of. No
sufficient details and particulars are given under Section 123 (2) of the
Act of 1951. It is thus prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. The application is replied by the election petitioner stating that the
election petition is complete in all respects. All material particulars are
stated. The petitioner has also filed an application for amendment of the
petition as he wants to include averments and to produce certain other
documents on record. The said application is opposed by the returned
candidate stating that the amendment cannot be allowed after limitation
period is over. It is only to fill up the lacuna in the election petition and
cannot be permitted. The other respondents have not contested
amendment application. The application for amendment can be decided
in case the present application is allowed and petition is dismissed and
( 13 ) EP-02-2025
the Court proceeds with the election petition.
13. Mr. Hon, the learned Senior Advocate, vehemently argued the
application by giving the particulars of the dates. He submits that the
petition was not complete on the date of presentation. There is no
proper averment as regards the corrupt practice and that the election
result was materially affected. The contents of the affidavit are available
on the website and those are downloaded. When the scrutiny of
nomination form was done, no objection was raised by the petitioner at
that stage. The respondent No.1 was associated with the Firm Nilkamal
only till 03.03.2015. The alleged Firm stood dissolved long back and
thus there was no question of disclosing the information about the same.
Only two firms are shown as Nilkamal and Sai Enterprises. There is no
specific pleading about the same. The proof required in the election
petition is strict as required in a criminal trial. Vague allegations in the
petition have no place.
14. As far as Sai Enterprises is concerned, he submits that, no
information is given by the petitioner. The petitioner thus has made
( 14 ) EP-02-2025
averments without any knowledge to him. The petition needs to be
presented only in the manner provided under the Act and only on the
grounds mentioned under the Act. No document is produced to show
that the applicant was a partner of the association namely, Nilkamal. He
further submits that the information is already supplied in the form. It
was necessary for the petitioner to produce the material on record. The
information which is already available on the website of the Election
Commission is produced. The margin of votes is more than 10,000. It
was necessary to show that these many voters were influenced because
of the alleged non-disclosure on the information. Thus, there is no
compliance of mandatory provision. The alleged non-payment of taxes
etc. cannot be said to be a corrupt practice. The allegation about
turnover is made without any proof. Averments in the petition are vague
and not specific.
15. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Advocate
Mr. Hon relied upon the following Judgments.
(i) Dhartipakar Mandalal Agarwal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi [AIR
1987 SC 1577];
( 15 ) EP-02-2025
(ii) F.A. Sapa ETC Vs. Singhora and Others Etc.[AIR 1991
SC 1557];
(iii) L. R. Shivaramagowda Etc Vs. T. M. Chandrashekar
Etc. [AIR 1999 SC 252];
(iv) Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali
Shigaonkar [(2009) 9 SCC 310];
(v) Ishwardas Rohani Vs. Alok Mishra and Ors. [(2012) 7
SCC 309];
(vi) Ajmera Shyam Vs. Kova Laxmi and Ors. [2025 SCC
OnLine Sc 1723];
(vii) Harmohinder Singh Pradhan Vs. Ranjeet Singh
Talwandi and Ors. [(2005) 5 SCC 46];
(viii) Rajendra Dhedya Gavit Vs. Sudhir Brijendra Jain
passed by this Court at Principle seat in Interim
Application (L) No.5808 of 2025 in Election Petition
No. 03 of 2025.
(ix) Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar and
Ors. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 573];
(x) Ravindra Dattaram Waikar Vs. Amol Gajanan Kirtikar
and Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3828];
(xi) Senthil Balaji V. Vs. A. P. Geetha and Ors. [(2023) 16
SCC 279];
(xii) Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang and Anr. [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 519].
16. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that there is no
compliance of Section 83 (a) of the Act of 1951. He further submits that
the petitioner himself applied for certain documents on 24.12.2024 after
( 16 ) EP-02-2025
the election. When the petitioner himself was not aware of the facts
alleged in the petition, it cannot be assumed that the voters had
knowledge of the same.
17. In reply, Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate, vehemently
argued that, in the election petition, the copies of the documents are
already annexed. Only certified copies were not available, and therefore,
those were not annexed. The law requires only copies of the documents
and not certified copies. The petition is therefore filed within limitation.
Once allegation is of improper reception of the nomination, there is no
need to show that the election is materially affected. It is the obligation
of the candidates to disclose the source of income. In the present case, it
is clearly demonstrated that the returned candidate did not correctly
disclose the source of income, as required in the case of Lok Prahari Vs.
Union of India [2018 (4) SCC 699]. The improper acceptance is on
account of non-disclosure of correct information so as to income. There
were Government dues of taxes of a partnership Firm, and therefore, it
was necessary to state the same in Form 26. Whether the firm was in
( 17 ) EP-02-2025
existence or was dissolved cannot be gone into at this stage. It may be
one of the defences available to the petitioner. However, certainly when
sufficient averments are made, petition needs to go for trial. The income
of Sai Enterprises is not shown. Thus, Form 26 was incomplete. It is
sufficiently averred in the petition as to how there was suppression of
material facts. He invited attention to the particulars and specific
averments to show that those are sufficient. Once there is an enrollment
certificate obtained, liability of the partnership firm starts. From the
website of the GST Department, it is clearly seen that there were dues
against the candidate shown in the name of partnership firm. The status
of the firm is shown to be active even on 01.01.2025. It is also seen from
the website that no tax returns were filed of the firm.
18. So far as verification is concerned, he submits that, the source of
information is clearly given, including the Laptop on which the
information was downloaded and the name of the person whose laptop
it was. The record is linked with Nilkamal which firm is shown to be
active till downloading of the information. There is no whisper about
( 18 ) EP-02-2025
non-disclosure or suppression of the name of the firm. He invited
attention to the forms filled in by the returned candidate alongwith
nomination form. He submits that there are sufficient averments made
in the petition. This is a fit case where a trial is required. The non-
disclosure is not only a violation of statutory provisions, but also a
violation of right of information of the voters.
19. In support of his submission, Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior
Advocate, has relied upon following Judgments:
(i) Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India [2018 (4) SCC 699]
(ii) Kisan Shankar Kathore Vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant and
Ors. [(2014) 14 SCC 162];
(iii) Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh Vs. Pukhrem
Sharatchandra Singh [(2017) 2 SCC 487];
(iv) Tarun Prasad Chatterjee Vs. Dinanath Sharma,
[(2000) 8 SCC 649];
(v) Rajkumar Yadav Vs. Samir Kumar Mahaseth and Ors.
[(2005) 3 SC 601];
(vi) Ramdhan Vs. Bhanwarlal [AIR 1985 Rajasthan
185];
(vii) Bhim Sen Vs. Gopali and Ors. [(1960) 22 ELR
( 19 ) EP-02-2025
288];
(viii) Sethi Roop Lal Vs. Malti Thaper [AIR Online 1994 SC
187].
(ix) Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. Vemireddy
Pattabhirami Reddy [AIR 2022 SC 5467];
(x) Sahodrabai Rai Vs. Ram Singh Aharwar and Ors.
[AIR 1968 SC 1079];
(xi) Madiraju Vyankata Ramana Raju Vs. Peddireddigari
Ramachandra Reddy and Ors. [(2018) 14 SCC 1]
(xii) D. Ramchandran Vs. R. V. Jankiraman and Ors.
[AIR 1999 SC 1128].
(xiii) Syed Dastagir Vs. T. R. Gopalakrishna Setty [AIR
1999 SC 3029].
(xiv) Liverpool and London S. P. and I. Association Ltd. Vs.
M. V. Sea Success I. [AIR 2003 SCC 527]
(xv) Ashraf Kokkur Vs. K. V. Abdul Khader Etc. [2014 AIR
SCW 4913]
(xvi) Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V.
Fortune Express and Ors.[AIR 2006 SC 1828];
(xvii) Umesh Challiyil Vs. K. P. Rajendran [AIR 2008 SC
1577];
(xviii) Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar Vs. Sukh Darshan
Singh [AIR 2005 SC 22];
( 20 ) EP-02-2025
(xix) Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and
Ors. [AIR 2012 SC 2638];
(xx) G. M. Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar [AIR 2013 SC
1549];
(xxi) Ajay Arjun Singh Vs. Sharadendu Tiwari and Ors.
[AIR 2016 SC 487];
(xxii) Saroj Sandesh Naik (Bhosale) Vs. Suyakant
Venkatrao Mahadik, passed by this Court at Principal
Seat in EP/14/1990;
(xxiii)Shrikrishna Vasudeo Datye Vs. Bhalchandra Anant
Sawant passed by this Court at Principal Seat in
EP/10/1978;
(xxiv) Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India
[(2014) 14 SCC 189];
(xxv) B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of
India [1991 AIR SCW 772];
(xxvi) Ganesh Ramchandra Naik Vs. Sitaram Bhoir and Ors.
[AIR 2000 Bombay 294];
(xxvii) Sathi Vijay Kumar Vs. Tota Singh [2007 AIR SCW
304];
20. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon, in rejoinder, submits that
the partnership firm is already dissolved. The GST registration was also
( 21 ) EP-02-2025
cancelled on 09.01.2019. The election has taken place in 2024. There
are no statements in the application that the firm is still in existence.
Since the firm was not in existence, there was no reason to disclose this
fact. About Sai Enterprises, everything is disclosed. It was necessary for
the petitioner to make positive statement in the petition that the
Nilkamal firm is in existence. Many things are now sought to be brought
on record by way of amendment application.
21. Before considering the averments in the present petition and the
application, this Court finds it necessary to go through legal position as
appearing from various pronouncements relied upon by the parties.
22. In the case of Dhartipakar Mandalal Agarwal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi
(supra), it is held that when the election petition is on the ground of
corrupt practices, it is necessary to specifically plead the corrupt
practice.
23. In the case of F.A. Sapa Etc. Vs. Singora and Ors. (supra), it is held
that the allegation of corrupt practice must be taken seriously. The High
( 22 ) EP-02-2025
Court, in election petition, has to ensure strict compliance with the
requirement of Section 83 before the parties to go for a trial. The Court
needs to keep in mind the impact on the future political and public life
of the candidate future needs to be considered. On the other hand, it
needs to be kept in mind that when it to be ensure, the purity of the
election process, and in that view, the allegations of corrupt practice
must be seriously examined. The compliance of Section 83 therefore
must be strictly scrutinized. The omission to disclose the grounds or
sources of information, though it may not be fatal, however, would
affect the probative value of the evidence ultimately to be lead at the
trial. The charge of corrupt practice needs to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and not merely by preponderance of probabilities. The
allegation of corrupt practice is of quasi-criminal nature. Therefore,
there must be disclosed full particulars at the earliest point of time and
to disclose the source of information promptly.
24. In the case of L.R. Shivaramegowda Vs. T.M. Chandrashekar
(supra), it is held that, if there is failure on the part of election petitioner
( 23 ) EP-02-2025
to plead specifically, and if there are no ingredients shown in the petition
demonstrating that the election is materially affected by the alleged non-
compliance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. In that case, the
allegation was of expenditure exceeding the prescribed limit and that
the election result was, therefore, materially affected, as no true and
correct account of expenditure was given. It is also further held that the
defects in the election petition invalidates the petition. No evidence
could have been permitted to be adduced without stating the material
facts.
25. In the case of Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali
Shigaonkar (supra), it is held that failure to state even a single material
fact entails dismissal of election petition. In absence of pleading, party
cannot be allowed to lead evidence. The Court discussed what
constitutes material facts and material particulars. The election petition
can be summarily dismissed if there is no cause of action disclosed.
26. In the case of Ishwardas Rohani Vs. Alok Mishra & Ors. (supra),
there was a difference of opinion in the Bench and the matter was
( 24 ) EP-02-2025
therefore placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Consequently, the
petition abetted. This Court, therefore, need not go into the facts of the
case and the discussion therein.
27. In the case of Ajmera Shyam Vs. Kova Laxmi (supra), a specific
question considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court was about non-disclosure
of the income shown in the income tax returns for four financial years
out of last five financial years in Form 26 affidavit, while submitting the
nomination paper by the respondent/returned candidate, and
acceptance of the said nomination by the Returning Officer was
considered. It was considered as to whether that would amount to
improper acceptance of the nomination or whether it would amount to
corrupt practice by the returned candidate. It was further considered as
to whether such non-disclosure would amount to non-compliance with
the provision of Act and the Rules, Orders made thereunder.
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court, on analyzing the relevant facts,
considered as to whether writing the income as "Nil" in Form 26
( 25 ) EP-02-2025
affidavit would amount to material defect. The Court while analyzing
the same, the court also considered the judgment in the case of Lok
Prahari Vs. Union of India (supra). It is thus held that mere failure to
disclose assets in the affidavit would not constitute a material defect and
is not of substantial character, and the same would not make the
acceptance of the nomination improper so as to validate the election. It
must be determined by the Court based on the specific facts of each case,
as observed Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang and Another (supra). Though
it may be considered a technical defect under the Rules, it was
considered not to be a defect of significant importance, as it does not
conceal assets. In the present case also, there is no allegation that the
assets are not disclosed. The allegation is only that in the income tax
return or GST return, the amount shown is "Nil". It was considered that
had there been allegation that the assets of the candidate are
disproportionate to the low income, and in that view, suppression of the
fact about the income tax return could have been taken seriously. It is
further held that there was no objection taken during the scrutiny of the
nomination form by the Returning Officer under Section 36 of the Act of
( 26 ) EP-02-2025
1951. Though that would not prevent anyone from challenging the
validity of the nomination, however, that fact would become relevant as
to whether the objection was raised when deficiencies which could have
been easily ascertained and detected at the time of scrutiny itself. In the
present case, it is not found that any objection was raised at the time of
scrutiny. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere non-
disclosure of certain information related to assets should not lead the
Court to invalidate the election by adopting a highly penal and fastidious
approach unless it is shown that it has influenced the election result.
This judgment, being latest and by considering all earlier judgments, this
certainly best more.
29. In the case of Harmohinder Singh Pradhan Vs. Ranjeet Singh
Talwandi, (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered corrupt practice
under Section 123(3) of the Act of 1951. It also considered the
requirement of material facts in an election petition. It was held that the
material facts cannot be supplied after expiry of limitation period for
filing election petition. Necessary averments of facts constituting an
( 27 ) EP-02-2025
appeal, if are missing, it cannot be supplied after the expiry of limitation
period. In that case, those averments were directed to be struck off
under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC.
30. In the case of Rajendra Dhedya Gavit Vs. Sudhir Brijendra Jain
(supra), it is a judgment of this Court at principal seat dated 23.06.2025
in Election Petition No.03/2025. This Court after considering the
arguments and the facts, dismissed the election petition, holding that
there were no specific averments disclosing the cause of action, by
considering the judgment in the case of Jyoti Basu and Ors. Vs. Debi
Ghosal and Ors. [AIR 1982 SC 983] and in the case of Kanimozhi
Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar (supra). The Court also considered
the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere bald and vague
allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance with
the requirement of stating material fact in the election petition, and even
if there is omission to state a single material fact that is fatal.
31. In the case of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar and
Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered as to what
( 28 ) EP-02-2025
constitutes material facts and that such facts need to be stated within a
period of limitation. Paragraph No.57 reads as under:
"57. It is settled legal position that all "material facts" must be
pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him within the
period of limitation. 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 will entail dismissal of the election
petition. The election petition must contain a concise statement of
"material facts" on which the petitioner relies."
32. In the case of Ravindra Waikar (supra). In the said case also, this
Court at Bombay has taken a view that there has to be complete
disclosure of facts. It was recorded that the petition was not in strict
compliance with the provisions of section 83(1)(a) of the R. P. Act. There
was no concise statement of material facts constituting the complete
cause of action, and on that ground, the petition must summarily
dismiss.
33. In the case of Senthilbalaji V. Vs. A.P. Geetha (supra), it is held that
when the allegations are of corrupt practice, the proceeding becomes in
the nature of quasi-criminal proceeding. It is, therefore, necessary that
( 29 ) EP-02-2025
the elected candidate get adequate notice of the allegations against him,
and therefore, it is necessary to state material facts.
34. In the case of Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang and Anr. (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the civil appeal by setting aside the
judgment and order passed by the High Court in Election Petition,
observing that the High Court was in error in concluding that the
sufficient grounds were made out under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)
(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951.
35. So far as judgment relied upon by the election petitioner are
discussed are below. In the case of Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India
(supra), it is about non-disclosure of assets and sources of income of
candidates and their associates as required by Rule 4-A of the Conduct of
Election Rules and Form 26. This judgment is already considered the
said judgment. This Court thus has to consider whether mere writing
"Nil" in the column of payment of income tax etc., would materially
affect the election result, as there is no suppression about the assets and
( 30 ) EP-02-2025
liability in substance. It is held that, it is the right of the voters to know
and to have information about the candidate's antecedents. In the said
case, the nomination paper was with blank particulars in the affidavit as
regards the antecedents of the candidate were considered. In that case,
the Returning Officer did not reject the nomination paper though the
spaces in the affidavit were blank. It was held that it affected the
election. In the said judgment, it is further held that at least what is
expected is to write a remark as "Nil" or "not applicable" or "not known"
in the column. In the present case, the candidate has written "Nil" and
has not left the spaces blank.
36. So far as judgment in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore Vs. Arun
Dattatray Sawant and Ors. (supra) is concerned, it was considered as to
whether non-disclosure of Government dues would amount to material
lapse. It was held that it would depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. In that case the non-disclosure was about electricity and
municipal dues by the appellant in the affidavit filed alongwith
nomination papers, as there was a dispute pending between the
authorities and the candidate about the dues. In that case, it was held
( 31 ) EP-02-2025
that non-disclosure of properties in the name of partnership firm of
which the candidate was a partner was held to be serious lapse, and on
that ground, the election was set aside by the High Court. It was held
that it is necessary to disclose such information in nomination papers as
per 2006 guidelines.
37. In the case of Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj Vs. Shri
Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh (supra), it is held that a false declaration
was made in Form 26. It was held that a defect was of substantial
character and is the nomination was liable to be rejected under Section
36(4) of the Act of 1951. It was further held that the voters have a right
to know about the educational qualification of the candidate contesting
the election. It is held that mere finding that there has been an improper
acceptance of the nomination is not sufficient for a declaration that the
election is void under Section 100(1)(d), but it is held that, there has to
be further pleading and proof that the result of the election of the
returned candidate was materially affected. However, the said
requirement is necessary when it is shown that the nomination form is
( 32 ) EP-02-2025
improperly accepted, more so, when there were only two candidates in
the fray. In the present case, it is not the case that there are only two
candidates in the fray, however it has to be seen whether there is
improper acceptance of nomination, and if so, whether it is sufficient to
declare the election petition void.
38. In the case of Tarun Prasad Chatterjee Vs. Dinanath Sharma,
(supra), the Hon'ble Court was examining the limitation under Section
81(1) of the Act of 1951. It considered that the day of election needs to
be excluded and the period of limitation thus would start computing
from the next day. The election petition thus presented on 45 th day was
held to be within limitation by considering the provisions of Section 9 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court particularly considered the
expression day "from" and day "to". There need not be any dispute on
this. In the present petition, what needs to be examined is whether when
there are defects on the date of presentation of the petition, and whether
it can be said to be within limitation and whether by way of amendment,
averments containing material facts can be introduced.
( 33 ) EP-02-2025
39. In the case of Rajkumar Yadav Vs. Samir Kumar Mahaseth (supra),
the question of limitation was again considered. It was held that the
limitation would expire on the midnight immediately preceding the
commencement of the next day. In the said case, the petition was
presented at 04:25 p.m. on the 45 th day. By that time, the Judge had
already risen from the open Court and was available in the chambers
within the Court premises. The dispute was as regards the presentation
of the petition whether necessarily meant that it should be produced
before the Judge or whether it is sufficient compliance to present the
petition in the office of the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
law does not require that the petition must be presented to a Judge. It is
an administrative duty of the office which can be assigned to the
administration. The petition was held to be presented within limitation.
40. So far as averments in the election petition is concerned, reliance
is place on the Full Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the
case of Ramdhan Vs. Bhanwarlal (supra). In the said case, it was held
that the Court has ample power to allow addition of prayer. The
( 34 ) EP-02-2025
character of the petition is not changed by allowing such amendment. It
was held that the prayer clause added relates back to the date of
presentation of the petition and can be allowed.
41. In the case of Bhim Sen Vs. Gopali and Ors . (supra), the petition
was filed on 22.04.1957. The respondent filed written statement on
24.07.1957 and on the basis of pleading issues were framed on
26.09.1957. It is thereafter the petitioner therein applied for amendment
on 05.10.1957. The same was objected on 08.10.1957. The Election
Tribunal overruled the objections of the respondents and allowed the
amendment prayed for by the appellant and two additional issues were
framed. The election petition came to be allowed later on. The findings
were solely on the basis of issues which were subsequently framed after
the amendment. The appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court.
The decision on the ground was set aside on the ground that the
Tribunal erred in law in allowing the amendment in question. The result
of the Election Tribunal came to be set aside. The High Court found that
when the petition was drafted, the information which later on was
( 35 ) EP-02-2025
received by him was not within his knowledge regarding the double
voting. It was subsequently, disclosed on inspection of ballot papers, and
it is in that view, the amendment was sought. The pleading was required
to be changed accordingly. The amendment application was in respect of
double voting. At the time of filing petition, it was impossible for any
candidates to know exactly as to in how many cases the double voting
had occurred. It was in that view the amendment was allowed. In the
present case, there is no such allegation and there is nothing which can
be said to have come to the knowledge of the petitioner only after filing
of the petition and was not possible for him to know prior to filing of
such petition. In the present case, this Court need not consider the said
judgment as it is in a totally different context and based on a different
set of facts.
42. In the case of Sethi Roop Lal Vs. Malti Thaper (supra), again the
question was of amendment of pleadings. The ground taken was of a
bogus voting. There, the amendment was required to be considered in
the light of section 87 and dehors section 86(5) of the Act, as the
( 36 ) EP-02-2025
amendment was not related to corrupt practice.
43. In the case of Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy vs Vemireddy
Pattabhirami Reddy (supra), the election petition was already filed on
the ground of improper acceptance of invalid votes. No ground of
corrupt practice was raised. The amendment was limited to improper
acceptance of nomination form for non-compliance with statutory
requirements. It was held that it cannot be considered as introduction of
new cause of action or new ground of challenge. The grounds sought to
be pleaded were not of a nature of changing character of the election
petition, and in that view, the amendment was allowed. There, the
election results were declared on 21.03.2017. The petition was filed on
27.04.2017. The amendment was sought by filing an application
thereafter. There was a criminal case filed against the returned candidate
which he had not disclosed in the nomination form about the pending
criminal case. The application was opposed on the ground that it was
filed after expiry of period of limitation and it was not permissible to
amend the petition. The High Court rejected the application and it is
( 37 ) EP-02-2025
thus the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble
Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 33-A Right to
information Act i.e. the requirement to furnish information as regards
criminal cases. It was held that the amendment was not intending to
bring in his election petition was not related to corrupt practice, and
therefore, that needs to be considered in the light of Section 87 and it
was held that the amendment needs to be allowed.
44. In the case of Sahodrabai Rai Vs. Ram Singh Aharwar and Ors.
(supra), the objection was of non-supplying the copy of annexure to the
respondent alongwith petition. It is held that the annexure to the
petition cannot be treated as part of the petition. In that case, it was a
translated copy of Hindi pamphlet into English. In the case of Madiraju
Vyankata Ramana Raju Vs. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy and Ors.
(supra), there was no averment as regards the improper acceptance of
nomination. It was held that it must be proved that the election was
materially affected by acceptance of a nomination which was not
acceptable, and mere acceptance would not automatically mean that the
( 38 ) EP-02-2025
election was materially affected. In that case, the allegation was of false
declaration regarding details of immovable assets and failure to fill up
nomination/affidavit and sign its pages. It was held that the Court
cannot dissect an election petition sentence-wise or paragraph-wise but
has to read the plaint as a whole to see whether a cause of action is
disclosed. The petition was dismissed by the High Court for non-
disclosure of cause of action. The Hon'ble Apex Court remanded the
matter back for trial by setting aside the order of the High Court. The
judgment also considered the pleadings and particulars of material facts
and distinguished the material facts from particulars of evidence. The
purpose of pleading and giving particulars was considered. While
concluding Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the approach of the High
Court in examining the Election Petition as filed is to read it as a whole
without subtracting any portion therefrom. The Court found that the
pleadings alleged to be frivolous and vexatious were not shown. It was
observed that the plain reading of the petition disclosed cause of action
for filing of the Election Petition and passed the order remanding the
petition.
( 39 ) EP-02-2025
45. In the case of D. Ramchandran Vs. R. V. Jankiraman and Ors .
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court recorded distinction between full
particulars and material facts which Court needs to consider while
deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. While doing so,
it is held that the Court cannot dissect pleadings into several parts and
strike out portions which do not disclose cause of action. Cause of action
consists of such pleadings which, if unrebutted, would lead to conclusion
that the result of the petition is void. The plaint cannot be rejected in
part. This view is again reiterated in the judgment of Bhim Rao
Baswanth Rao Patil Vs. K. Madan Mohan Rao and Ors. [(2023) 18 SCC
231].
46. In the case of Syed Dastagir Vs. T. R. Gopalakrishna Setty (supra) ,
the Court considered Order VI Rule 1 of CPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
a case of specific performance of contract held that the pleading should
be read to gather true spirit behind it, and therefore, it needs to be read
as a whole.
47. The case of Liverpool and London S. P. and I. Association Ltd. Vs.
( 40 ) EP-02-2025
M. V. Sea Success I. (supra), was under Maritime Act. Section 8 of the
said Act is considered, wherein it was held that the High Court of
Admiralty has jurisdiction to decide the question as to ownership etc.
The Court consider the history of the jurisdiction of the High Court.
48. In the case of Ashraf Kokkur Vs. K. V. Abdul Khader Etc. (supra),
the petition was filed on the ground that the candidate was holding of
office of profit under State Government as Chairperson of Kerala State
Waqf Board. It was held that it clearly constituted a material fact giving
rise to triable issue. In that case, the petition was dismissed holding that
it did not disclose complete cause of action or a triable issue. The
Hon'ble Apex Court held that there was clearly a question made out for
trial.
49. A well settled principle is reiterated in the judgment in the case of
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express and
Ors. (supra), that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot
result in rejection of the plaint on the basis of allegations made by
( 41 ) EP-02-2025
defendant in his written statement. It was held that mere opinion of the
Judge that the plaintiff may not succeed is no ground to reject the plaint.
There cannot be any quarrel on the proposition.
50. In the case of Umesh Challiyil Vs. K. P. Rajendran (supra), the
petition was rejected on the ground of Rule 94-A i.e. verification of
pleading was not properly done. Though the verification was not in
specific format, it was held that the petition is not liable to be dismissed
if, in substance, the verification is in the prescribed format.
51. In the case of Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar Vs. Sukh Darshan
Singh (supra), the said judgment also considered Rule 94A, it is held
that non-compliance with the requirement of filing an affidavit cannot
be a ground for dismissal of the election petition in limine. In case the
High Court forms an opinion that there is a defect in the affidavit, the
petitioner should be given an opportunity to remove the defect by filing
a proper affidavit.
( 42 ) EP-02-2025
52. In the case of Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and
Ors. (supra), it is held that the petition, by taking averments in totality
and by assuming them to be factually correct, need not be dismissed at
the threshold.
53. In the case of G. M. Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar , (supra), it
was held that the petition alleging corrupt practice need not be
accompanied by two affidavits i.e. one in support of allegations of
corrupt practice and another as per requirements of Order VI Rule 15(4)
of CPC. It is held that the verification of pleading and affidavit filed in
support of pleading are quite different. An affidavit is a stand alone
document and not a part of verification. It is held that any defect in
affidavit or in its verification is curable defect and is not sufficient
ground to dismiss the petition in limine.
54. In the case of Ajay Arjun Singh Vs. Sharadendu Tiwari and Ors.
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering grounds specified
under Clauses (A) to (C) of Order VI Rule 16 of CPC, it is held that each
( 43 ) EP-02-2025
of them is a distinct ground. The authority of the court under clause (C)
of Order VI Rule 16 of CPC was considered. It was held that in Election
Petition, the Court has to assume that all averments in the election
petition are factually correct and decide the application by scrutinizing
as to whether allegations are relevant in the context of the relief sought.
55. In the case of Saroj Sandesh Naik (Bhosale) Vs. Suyakant
Venkatrao Mahadik (supra), the office objections were removed after a
period of limitation was over. It was held that the objections were
routine office objections and were not linked with any mandatory
provision of Act, and therefore, those cannot be taken as a ground for
dismissal of the petition.
56. In the case of Shrikrishna Vasudeo Datye Vs. Bhalchandra Anant
Sawant (supra), this Court held that the petition should be complete
when it is handed over to the proper officer in the office of Prothonotary
and Senior Master. The subsequent stages such as entry in the special
register or acceptance by the judge are distinct and do not affect the
date of presentation. It was held that the petition was lodged within
( 44 ) EP-02-2025
prescribed time limit.
57. In the case of Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India
(supra), in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that keeping the
column in the form blank makes it incomplete form and such
nomination form is to be rejected by the Returning Officer. In the said
case, the candidate failed to fill the blank even after being reminded of
the same by the Returning Officer.
58. In the case of B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election Commission of
India (supra), the election petition was filed challenging the validity of
the order of Election Commission declaring polling at the polling station
as void and directing re-polling at the said polling station. In a petition,
the Election Commission of India was made a party respondent. The
Election Commission filed an application for deletion of its name. It was
held by the High Court that the Election Commission was neither
necessary nor a proper party and directed to delete the name of Election
Commission of India from the array of parties. The said order came to be
( 45 ) EP-02-2025
upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. By relying upon the said judgment,
this Court has also decided the case, as used by this Court in the case of
Ganesh Ramchandra Naik (supra), holding that merely because
allegations are made against some persons is no reason to make them
parties to the petition. It is further held that the Returning Officer and
the Election Commission are also not necessary parties.
59. In the case of Sathi Vijay Kumar Vs. Tota Singh (supra), this
judgment is mainly on the ground under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC i.e.
striking out of pleadings and applicability of the said rule to trial of
election petition. It is held that the court cannot direct the parties as to
how they should prepare there pleadings. The parties if have not
offended the rules of pleading by making averments or raising arguable
issues. The court would not order striking out pleadings. The said power
is extra-ordinary in nature which needs to be exercise sparingly and with
extreme care, caution and circumspection. There is no dispute about the
said proposition.
60. So far as office objections are concerned, the first objection is non-
( 46 ) EP-02-2025
joinder of Election Commission and the Returning Officer as parties to
the election petition. Second objection is about pagination of the
documents which is not mentioned in the index. Looking to the relief
prayed by the petitioner in the petition, it is seen that the prayer is to
declare the election of the respondent No.1 as void and also it be
declared the election petitioner as duly elected candidate in terms of
section 84 r/w 101(b) of the RP Act. Nothing is shown to indicate that
looking to the prayers of the petition that the Election Commission is a
necessary party. Even no objection is taken by the respondent on the said
ground. So far not mentioning pagination in the index is concerned, this
Court finds that it is a trivial objection and not of substantial nature.
Nothing turns on the said objection even if it is not removed. This Court
does not find force in the objection. The same therefore need not be
considered.
61. Section 82 of the RP Act clearly stipulates as to who shall be a
necessary party to the election petition. This Court finds that the
Election Commission or Returning Officer are not necessary parties.
( 47 ) EP-02-2025
62. Presently, this Court has to decide the specific grounds raised in
the application that the petition does not disclose a cause of action; that
the petition was not complete on the date of presentation; and that there
are no sufficient averments disclosing cause of action and material facts.
The question is whether such averments can now be allowed to be
inserted by way of amendment. The application for amendment is
already filed and same is also pending for consideration before this
Court. However, without going into that amendment application, the
Court will have to decide, on the petition as it stands, whether cause of
action is disclosed. Further question is whether the defects in verification
etc. were curable and whether even now such defects can be allowed to
be cured.
63. In this petition, there is specific allegation made that the elected
candidate while filling up the nomination form has disclosed his earning
source is the firm namely, Sai Enterprises. However, the fact that he is
also a partner in firm namely, Nilkamal is suppressed. The respondent
No.1 has also not disclosed the assets and liabilities of the firm Sai
( 48 ) EP-02-2025
Enterprises. So far as Sai Enterprises is concerned, it is not shown as to
how much income he derived from the said firm, this is also a material
fact.
64. The petitioner in the petition has specifically made averments that
the respondent No.1 is a partner in Nilkamal firm. He relied upon the
website maintained by the GST Department. It is further averred that in
specific terms that in the website, it is seen that there are dues of
professional taxes. Inspite of this position, the respondent No.1 has not
disclosed the fact of being a partner in the firm Nilkamal. So far as
Government dues are concerned, he has stated "Nil" in Form 26. It is
specific averment in the petition that there are dues to the tune of
Rs.25,000/-. The amount of interest is Rs.26,650/-. Thus, the total dues
of Rs.54,650/-. Though it is tried to be argued by Mr. Hon, Senior
Advocate that the Respondent No.1 is no more partner in firm Nilkamal
and the said firm is dissolved, it need not be considered at this stage as
the petitioner has produced on record the copy downloaded from the
website of the GST Department showing status of the firm as alive. In
( 49 ) EP-02-2025
such circumstances, merely because the defence is raised that the
respondent No.1 is not the partner in firm Nilkamal, need not be
considered at this stage being only the defence available to the
Respondent No.1. This Court prima facie finds that this clearly attracts
the ingredients of Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act.
65. Above discussion would clearly lead to conclude that the
nomination form filled in by the respondent No.1 was not properly filled
in and such form is accepted. Had the liabilities of Nilkamal firm been
shown in the nomination, there are chances that the voters would have
noticed the said. In that case, there was possibility of election being
materially affected.
66. This submission by the respondent No.1 find force in view of
judgment in the case of Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju (supra), wherein
the elected candidate had not disclosed the substantive assets and the
source of the assets.
67. The next question is about not following Rules and Orders made
under the Act and non-compliance of provisions of Constitution of India
( 50 ) EP-02-2025
and the Act, 1951. It is seen that prima facie Form 26 is not properly
filled in.
68. The returned candidate has duly influenced the voters and unduly
secured the votes. This Court prima facie finds that there is no case
made out under Section 101(b) of the RP Act. However, it is always
open during the course of trial to look into this.
69. Considering all the judgments cited and specifically the judgment
in the cases of Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil Vs. K. Madan Mohan Rao
and Ors. (supra) and D. Ramchandran Vs. R. V. Jankiraman and Ors .
(supra), on the point that plaint cannot be dismissed in part. Since the
plaint cannot be rejected partly, there is no question of rejecting the
petition at the threshold as some triable issue has been made out. There
are sufficient averments in the petition to show that the petition requires
a trial. This Court finds that when there is ground made out to go for
trial, no case is made out to allow the present application. The
application (Exhibit-23) therefore deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the
following order:-
( 51 ) EP-02-2025
ORDER
(i) Application (Exhibit-23) in Election Petition stands
dismissed.
(ii) Place the Election Petition for further consideration
on 07.05.2026.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE (PA)
