Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mahantesh S/O Naandayya ... vs Sri. Vijaykumar S/O Siddappa ... on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Byarhj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103453 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHANTESH
S/O NANDAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AMINGAD,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.M.NADAF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. VIJAYKUMAR
S/O SIDDAPPA KANNUR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AMINGAD,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587112.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAYALAXMI
VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT
M BHAT Date:
2. SRI. KUDLEPPA
2023.10.07
12:23:16
+0530
S/O VEERASANGAPPA CHITTARAGI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AMINGAD,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587112.
3. ELECTION RETURNING OFFICER
PATTAN PANCHAYAT AMINAGAD,
WARD NO. 9 TO 16,ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P.W.D. DEPARTMENT, BAGALKOTE-587112.
4. TAHASILDAR HUNGUND
TQ: HUNGUND,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587112.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT.
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOTE-587112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, R3-ARE NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.27 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES
ACT, 1964, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN ELECTION
PETITION NO. 01/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT HUNGUND. TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2022,
IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 01/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUNGUND, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
ELECTION PETITION AS PRAYED FOR., IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from the order in Election Petition
1/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund.
2. The petitioner claims to be a voter in Ward No.16
of Amingad Pattan Panchayath and is aggrieved by the
declaration of result in favour of the 1st respondent who is
declared to be an elected candidate in panchayat election
of Ward No.16 of Amingad Pattan Panchayath. The
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
petition is filed to set-aside the election of respondent
No.1 to Ward No.16 of Amingad Pattan Panchayath.
3. The contents of the petition would disclose that
the petitioner is aggrieved by the claim of the 1st
respondent who claimed to the eligible to contest to the
election as member of Backward Class-B category.
Petitioner has taken a stand that on account of the income
declared by the 1st respondent before the Income Tax
Authorities, he cannot claim the status of Backward Class-
B category.
4. The petitioner's claim was seriously contested by
the 1st respondent - elected candidate. He denied all the
allegations. Pursuant to that the Court framed three
issues which read as under:
1. Whether petitioner has made
out grounds to declare the election of
Respondent No.1 to the Ward No.16
of Amingad Pattan Panchayath as
void and illegal?
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
2. Whether petitioner is entitled
to the relief sought for?
3. What order?
5. It can be noticed from the averments in the
petition that the petitioner in paragraph 4 has furnished the
details of certain properties standing in the name of 1st
respondent and has also averred that there are certain
other properties which stand in the name of the 1st
respondent.
6. During the course of trial, it appears that the
petitioner has secured the copy of the affidavit furnished by
1st respondent which is mandatory in terms of the direction
issued by the Apex Court wherein the candidate who
contests the election has to furnish the details of his assets
and liabilities. It appears that during the course of
evidence, the petitioner has made an attempt to make out
case that the affidavit furnished by the 1st respondent does
not disclose all the facts which are required to be disclosed
and 1st respondent has suppressed certain material facts.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
The respondent has contested the said contention sought to
be made in the evidence of the petitioner and has also led
evidence in support of his case wherein he has tried to
make out a case that certain properties which are not
disclosed in the affidavit were already released in favour of
his parents. Thus, it appears that the parties have
understood on what grounds the case is being fought,
namely suppression of material fact and false declaration in
the affidavit filed before the returning officer.
7. It is necessary to extract Order XIV Rule 3 of the
Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:
"3. Materials from which issues may
be framed.- The Court may frame the issues
from all or any of the following materials:-
(a) allegations made on oath by the parties,
or by any persons present on their behalf,
or made by the pleaders of such parties;
(b) allegations made in the pleadings or in
answers to interrogatories delivered in the
suit;
(c) the contents of documents produced by
either party."
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
8. Order XIV Rule 3 of CPC provides that Court may
frame issues from all or any of the materials enumerated
therein. On reading of the said provision, it is apparent
that apart from the statement made on oath and from the
pleadings or the answers to interrogatories, the Court can
also frame the issues based on the contents of the
documents produced by either parties.
9. On considering the evidence led before the trial
Court and also on considering the documents placed before
the trial Court, this Court is of the view that an issue is
required to be framed relating to the corrupt practice
alleged by the petitioner in his evidence. Accordingly, the
following issue is framed:
"Whether the petitioner is able to
establish that the 1st respondent indulged
in corrupt practice by not furnishing the
details of his assets and liabilities"?
10. Since this issue is not framed and no finding is
recorded by the trial Court on this issue, this Court deems it
appropriate to refer the matter to the trial Court by setting-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
aside the impugned order. It is further made clear that
after framing issues, the parties are at liberty to adduce
additional evidence in support of their respective claim on
the said issue. It is also made clear that the parties are not
entitled to amend either the petition or the statement of
objections. This Court has further made it clear that it has
not expressed any opinion on the merits or claim of either
of the parties. All contentions kept open to be tried afresh.
11. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 13.09.2022
passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund in
Election Petition No.1/2022 is set-aside.
(ii) Appeal is allowed in part.
(iii) Since, it is also brought to the notice of
this Court that more than two years have elapsed
after the declaration of the election result,
needless to state that the petition be decided
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11788
MFA No. 103453 of 2022
expeditiously as the law also requires speedy
disposal of election petitions.
(iv) Both the parties shall co-operate in early
disposal of the petition and the trial court is also
requested to make all endeavours to decide the
matter on priority basis.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BRN
