[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Randhir Kumar Singh vs Uday Shankar Singh on 6 February, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
E.P. No. 7 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 660 of 2026
Randhir Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Uday Shankar Singh ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
---
11/06.02.2026 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
I.A. No. 660 of 2026
2. This petition has been filed under Order XIV Rule 2(2) read
with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to treat the
issue of maintainability of the election petition as a preliminary issue
and for that purpose, the following two points have been raised:
(i) Whether the present application is maintainable in the present
form?
(ii) Whether the application is barred by the principle of limitation and
waiver?
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has
been filed within the period of limitation and therefore, there is no
question of the petition being barred under limitation.
4. So far as the point regarding maintainability in the form is
concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petition has been filed as per the prescribed form and no defect as such
has been pointed out by the respondent with regard to the manner in
which the petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to paragraph 11
of the interlocutory application to submit that allegation has been
levelled regarding non-disclosure of inconsequential or divested assets
and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by long drawn
adjudication of the matter. He has also submitted that so far as the
point regarding limitation and waiver is concerned, he is not pressing
the same at this stage.
6. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
non-disclosure was inconsequential or material or substantial is
required to be considered through evidence and therefore, the election
petition is not fit to be rejected on preliminary issue.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that
the point no. (i) raised through preliminary issue and also the point of
waiver if any, requires appreciation of evidence and materials to be
placed by the respective parties. So far as the point no. (ii) regarding
limitation is concerned, the respondent has chosen not to press the
point of limitation at this stage.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 660 of 2026 is hereby rejected.
9. Both the parties undertake to file the list of witnesses.
10. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, post this
case on 13th February, 2026.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
