Orissa High Court
*** vs Pratyusha Rajeswari Singh on 21 November, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
I.A. No.93 of 2025
(Arising out of ELEPT No.9 of 2024)
An application under Rule 27(a) of Chapter VI, Part-II, Vol-I of
the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948.
***
Arun Kumar Sahoo
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
Pratyusha Rajeswari Singh
... Opposite Party.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Mishra, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. T.K. Biswal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. G. Agarwal, Senior Advocate
Assisted by Ms. S. Srivastava,
N. Dadhichi & A. Tripathy, Advocates.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 14.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 21.11.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This Interlocutory Application under Rule 27(a) of
Chapter VI, Part-II, Volume-I of the Rules of the High Court of
Orissa, 1948 has been filed by the respondent No.1 in Election
Petition No.9 of 2024 praying for the incorporation of the
name of the Respondent No.2 of the Election Petition No.9 of
2024 i.e. Hemanta Kumar Prusty as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A.
Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 arising out of the Election Petition
No.9 of 2024 stating therein that, when, Hemanta Kumar
Prusty is the respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of
2024, then, he (Hemanta Kumar Prusty) is required to be
arrayed as Opp. Party No.2 in the I.As. vide I.A. Nos.113,114
& 117 of 2024. As by the time of filing of the above I.As vide
I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 on dated 11.11.2024, the
respondent No.2 (Hemanta Kumar Prusty) was not impleaded
as respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024, and
he (Hemanta Kumar Prusty) was arrayed as respondent No.2
in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 as per order dated
11.12.2024 passed in I.A. No.15 of 2024, for which, the
respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 was not
arrayed as Opp.Party No.2 in the I.A. Nos.113,114 and 117 of
2024 filed on dated 11.11.2024, but, he (Hemanta Kumar
Prusty) is the necessary and proper party in the I.A.
Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024. Because, he (Hemanta Kumar
Prusty) is empowered under law to participate in the hearing
of the I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 by filing his reply.
Therefore, the said Hemanta Kumar Prusty (respondent
No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024) is required to be
impleaded as Opp. Party No.2 in the I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117
of 2024 and his name is required to be incorporated as Opp.
Party No.2 in the I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 on the basis
of the order passed in this I.A. No.93 of 2025 for the same.
To which, the Election Petitioner in Election Petition No.9
of 2024 objected on the ground that,
"I.A. No.113 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No.1 in
Election Petition No.9 of 2024 against her (Election Petitioner)
praying for dismissal of the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 for
non-submission of an affidavit in Form No.25 with the Election
Petition in compliance to the mandate of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951 read with Rule 94-A of the
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, stating that, the allegations of
corrupt practices have been alleged against the respondent
No.1 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024, for which, an
affidavit in Form No.-25 was compulsorily required, but the
same has not been filed.
The I.A. No.114 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No.1
in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 against her (Election Petitioner)
praying for the rejection of the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 for
non-compliance of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 and Sub-section
(2) of Section 83 of the R.P Act, 1951 read with Order 7, Rule 14
of the CPC, 1908.
The I.A. No.117 of 2024 was filed by the respondent No.1
in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 against her (Election Petitioner)
under Order 6, Rule 16 of the CPC praying for striking out
Paragraph Nos. 7.A to 7.M from the pleadings of Election
Petition No.9 of 2024.
Eight months after filing of I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of
2024 i.e. on 07.07.2025, the respondent No.1 of the Election
Petition No.9 of 2024 filed this I.A. vide I.A. No.93 of 2025
praying for the impleadment of Hemanta Kumar Prusty as Opp.
Party No.2 in I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 without
indicating any lawful reason for his impleadment as party in
I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024. The I.A. No.93 of 2025 has
been filed by the returned candidate i.e. respondent No.1 in
Election Petition No.9 of 2024 for no other reason, but only in
order to frustrate the expeditious disposal of the Election
Petition No.9 of 2024. That apart, a single Interlocutory
Application vide I.A. No.93 of 2025 for the impleadment of
respondent No.2 as Opp. Party No.2 in all the three I.As. vide
I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 is not entertainable under law.
As, the Election Petitioner in Election Petition No.9 of 2024
has not sought for any relief against the respondent No.2, for
which, the respondent No.2 (Hemanta Kumar Prusty) is neither
a necessary party nor a proper party in the I.A Nos.113,114 &
117 of 2024.
No provision in the CPC, 1908 empowers the Court for the
impleadment of one respondent i.e. respondent No.2 in the
Election Petition as a party in the Interlocutory Application filed
by another respondent in the Election Petition i.e. respondent
No.1.
So, under the above reasons, the I.A. No.93 of 2025 filed
by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 is
liable to be dismissed."
2. I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner (respondent No.1 in the Election Petition No.9 of
2024) and the learned Senior Counsel for the Opp. Party No.1
(Election Petitioner in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024).
3. In support of the prayer of the petitioner (respondent
No.1 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024) for the
impleadment of Hemanta Kumar Prusty as Opp. Party No.2 in
I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024, his learned Senior Counsel
relied upon the following decisions:
1. M/s. J N Real Estate Vs. Shailendra Pradhan
& Others:2025 INSC 611.
2. M/s. K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar &
Others:AIR 1958 SC 687.
3. Inamati Mallappa Basappa Vs. Desai
Basavaraj Ayyappa and Others:AIR 1958 SC
On the contrary, for the dismissal of the I.A. No.93 of
2025, the learned Senior Counsel for the Election Petitioner
relied upon the following decisions:
1. K. Venkateswara Rao & Another Vs. Bekkam
Narasimha Reddi & Others:1968 SCC Online
SC 285.
2. B. Sundara Rami Reddy Vs. Election
Commission of India & Others:1991 Supp. 2
SCC 624.
3. Inamati Mallappa Basappa Vs. Desai
Basavaraj Ayyappa and Others:AIR 1958 SC
4. The I.A. No.93 of 2025 has been filed by the respondent
No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 for the impleadment of
the respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024, as
Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 as per
Rule 27(a) of Chapter V, Part-II, Volume-I of the Rules of the
High Court of Orissa, 1948.
5. Rule 27(a) of Chapter V, Part-II, Volume-I of the Rules of
the High Court of Orissa, 1948 provides that
"A party seeking an interim relief x x x
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x is required
to file separate petition for the same."
6. All the three I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 are separate
and different nature of I.As. and each I.A. has been filed under
the different provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 and the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908.
7. When the Rule 27 (a) of Chapter V, Part-II Volume I of
the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 provides that, a
party seeking an interim relief is required to file separate
petition for the same, for which, as per the provisions
envisaged in Rule 27(a) of Chapter V, Part-II Volume I of the
Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, a single petition i.e.
I.A. No.93 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.1 of the Election
Petition No.9 of 2024 for the impleadment of respondent No.2
in Election Petition No.9 of 2024 as Opp. Party No.2 in three
I.As. vide I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 is not entertainable
under law.
There are specific provisions in the special Statute i.e. in
Section 82 & 86(4) of the R.P. Act, 1951 for the impleadment
of parties in the Election Petition.
8. The Court trying the Election dispute under R.P. Act,
1951 cannot exercise its power under the General Act i.e.
under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 to direct the parties
of the Election Petition for the impleadment of another as
party in the said Election Petition, when, there is specific
provisions in the special Statute i..e R.P. Act, 1951 for the
same. For which, the provisions under Order 1, Rule 10 of the
CPC are not applicable to this I.A. No.93 of 2025 arising out of
Election Petition No.9 of 2024 for passing an order to implead
the respondent No.2 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 as
Opp. Party No.2 in I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 filed by his
co-respondent i.e. respondent No.1.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Apex court in the ratio of the following
decision:
In a case between B. Sundara Rami Reddy
Vs. Election Commission of India &
Others reported in 1991 Supp. 2 (SCC)
624 that, the concept of joinder of a party to
a suit or proceeding underlying in Order 1,
Rule 10 of the CPC cannot be imported to
the trial of an election petition or
proceedings thereof.
9. It is very fundamental in law that, when a party wants to
implead a person in a proceeding as a party, it is obligatory on
his part to demonstrate before the Court, as to how the
presence or impleadment of the that party is necessary for the
adjudication of that matter.
10. Nowhere, in the petition of the I.A. No.93 of 2025, the
respondent No.1 has indicated, why and for which reason, the
respondent No.2 of the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 i.e.
Hemanta Kumar Prusty is necessary for adjudication of the
I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024, those have been filed by the
respondent No.1 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 praying
for the dismissal of the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 alleging
non-compliance of the provisions of R.P. Act, 1951 and the
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
That apart, the matters in dispute involves in the I.A.
Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 is between the respondent No.1
and the Election Petitioner, in which, the respondent No.2 can
have no say. For which, on this ground also, the I.A. No.93 of
2025 filed by the respondent No.1 in Election Petition No.9 of
2024 for the impleadment of the respondent No.2 as Opp.
Party No.2 in I.A. Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 is not
entertainable under law.
11. As per the discussions and observations made above, it
is held that, the I.A. filed by the respondent No.1 for
impleadment of respondent No.2 as Opp. Party No.2 in I.A.
Nos.113,114 & 117 of 2024 is not entertainable under law.
Therefore, the decisions relied by the respondent No.1 of
Election Petition No.9 of 2024 indicated in Para No.3 of this
Judgment are not applicable to this I.A. at hand.
When it is held that, this I.A. No.93 of 2025 filed by the
respondent No.1 in the Election Petition No.9 of 2024 is not
entertainable under law, then, the same is liable to be
dismissed.
12. As such, there is no merit in the I.A. filed by the
petitioner (respondent No.1). The same must fail.
In result, the I.A. filed by the petitioner (respondent No.1)
is dismissed on contest.
Therefore, this I.A. filed by the respondent No.1 in
Election Petition No.9 of 2024 is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 21.11. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
