[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Kanak Vardhan Singh vs Saroj Kumar Meher .... Opposite Party/ on 28 November, 2025

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT

           CUTTACK

                                   I.A. No.31 of 2025
                        (Arising out of ELPET No.20 of 2024)

                  Kanak Vardhan Singh .... Petitioner/Respondent
                  Deo
                                    -versus-
                  Saroj Kumar Meher             ....           Opposite Party/
                                                                   Petitioner

                  Appeared in this case:-
                  For Petitioner /          :         Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate and
                  Respondent                          Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate

                  For Opposite Party /      :         Mr. G. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
                  Petitioner                         assisted by Ms. S. Srivastava,
                                                                          Advocate

                  CORAM:
                  JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

                                          JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 10.11.2025 / date of order : 28.11.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This Interlocutory Application under Order-7,

Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the

respondent (returned candidate) in Election Petition No.20

of 2024 against the election petitioner praying for rejection

of the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 filed by the election

petitioner on the ground that, though allegations of corrupt

practices have been alleged against the respondent in the election petition, but, the election petition is not supported

with its statutory requirement, i.e., an affidavit in Form

No.25, which was required according to Sub-section(1) of

Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

read with Section 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules,

1961.

In addition to that, the election petitioner has not

disclosed/reflected the particulars of the pending criminal

cases against the respondent and the particulars of the

assets of the respondent, to which, the respondent should

have disclosed in the required Form at the time of filing of

his nominations before the Election Officer, for which, on

the ground of detailed non-disclosure of the same, the

election petition of the election petitioner is liable to be

rejected.

To which, the election petitioner objected by filing his

show-cause stating therein that, his election petition is in

conformity with the provisions of Sections 81, 82, 83, 84

and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and

The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. For which, the

election petition cannot be rejected at its threshold under

Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908.

The further objection of the election petitioner that, in

the Election Petition vide Election Petition No.20 of 2024,

he(election petitioner) has prayed for declaration of the

result of the election of the returned candidate(respondent)

as void on the ground of improperly/illegally acceptance of

his nomination papers and the affidavits submitted with the

same. There is no allegation in the election petition about

the commission of any corrupt practice against the

respondent(returned candidate). For which, the election

petition of the election petitioner can never be rejected on

the grounds stated in the petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of

the C.P.C. of the respondent(returned candidate).

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

respondent(returned candidate) and the learned senior

counsel for the election petitioner.

For the rejection of the election petition of the election

petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent(returned

candidate) relied upon the following decisions:-

i) AIR 2024 SC (Civil)-1336; Karim Uddin Barbhuiya vrs.

Aminul Haque Laskar and others

(ii) AIR 2023 SC-2366; Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vrs. A. Santhana Kumar and others

(iii) AIR 1976 SC-744; Udhav Singh vrs, Madhav Rao Scindia

(iv) AIR 1969 SC-1201; Samant N. Balkrishna, etc. vrs. George Fernandez and others, etc.

(v) AIR 1987 SC-1577; Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vrs.

Shri Rajiv Gandhi

(vi) SLA(C) No.12491 of 2025 Judgment dated 22.08.2025(Tankadhar Tripathy vrs. Dipali Das)

3. The respondent(returned candidate) has filed this

Interlocutory Application for rejection of the election petition

of election petitioner on the ground of non-compliances of

the provisions of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the

People Act, 1951 and Rule-94-A of the Conduct of Elections

Rules, 1961 for non-filing of the required Form No.25 with

the election petition of the election petitioner.

4. The law relating to the nature of consideration of a

petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., 1908 and the

merits of the petition/application of the returned candidate

for rejection of the election petition on the allegations of

non-compliances of the provisions of Section 81 and 83 of

the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Rule-

94-A of the Conduct of the Elections Rules, 1961 on the

ground of non-submission of an affidavit in Form No.25

with the Election Petition has already been clarified in the

ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Manhar Joshi vrs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and another : reported in (1996) 1 SCC-169 that, non-compliance of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not specified as a ground for dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(ii) In a case between Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar vrs. Sukh Darshan Singh and others : reported in (2004) 11 SCC-196 that, if the court felt that, the particulars as given in the election petition were deficient in any manner, the petitioner could be directed to supply the particulars and make deficiency good.

Such deficiency could not be a ground for dismissing the election petition at the threshold.

(iii) In a case between Kimneo Haokip Hangshing vrs. Kenn Raikhan and others : reported in 2024(4) Civil Court Cases-302(S.C.) that, election petition should not be rejected under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, at the very threshold, when, there is a "substantial compliance" of provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951.

(iv) In a case between G.M. Siddeshwar vrs. Prasanna Kumar : reported in (2013) 4 SCC-776 that, whether any election petition is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold--Even if, the corrupt practices of a returned candidate having been given by a petitioner in terms of the provision in Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, but, when there is substantial compliance in terms of furnishing of that is required under the law has been given, election petition cannot be summarily dismissed as per Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.

(v) In a case between K. Babu vrs. M. Swaraj :

reported in 2024(2) Civil Law Judgments- 501(S.C.)(Para-11) that, non-compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not fatal to the election petition of the election petitioner. Because, Section 86(1) of the

Representation of the People Act speaks only non- compliance of Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act being the basis for dismissal of the election petition, but, the defect for non- compliance of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not a ground for dismissal of the election petition as per Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., because, the same are curable defects.

(vi) In a case between H.D. Revanna vrs. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and others : reported in (1999) 2 SCC-217 that, a defect in the verification of the election petition or the affidavit accompanied the election petition was held to be curable, not sufficient to justify for dismissal of the election petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.

(vii) In a case between Ponnala Lakshmaiah vrs.

Kommuri Pratap Reddy and others : reported in 2012(3) CCC-21(S.C.) that, a defective affidavit is not sufficient ground for summary dismissal of the election petition as per Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C., as the provision of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are not mandatorily to be accompanied with nor did the same make an election petition invalid as an affidavit can be allowed to be filed at a later stage or so.

(viii) In a case between Naba Kumar Doley vrs. Bharat Chandra Narah : reported in 2012(3) Civil Law Times-25(Gauhati) that, defect in verification of pleading and non-filing of affidavit as required under Order-6, Rule-15(2) of the C.P.C., 1908 are curable defect, on that count election petition cannot be rejected.

(ix) In a case between Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited vrs. Ashok Vidyarthi and others :

reported in (2024) 11 SCC-503, 2023 SCC Online(S.C.)-1612 that, the merit of the controversy cannot be examined at the stage of the decision under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C.

(x) In a case between Ponnala Lakshmaiah vrs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and others : reported in (2012) 7 SCC-788 that, when the defects are technical and curable, election petition cannot be rejected.

(xi) In a case between Sahodrabai Rai vrs. Ram Singh Aharwar : reported in 1968(3) SCR-13, that, an

election petition cannot be rejected on the ground of non-compliance of Section 83(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

5. When, it has been clarified in the ratio of the above

decisions indicated in Para No.4 of this judgment that, non-

filing of an affidavit with an election petition by the election

petitioner as per the requirements of Section 83(1) of The

Representation of the People Act, 1951, cannot be a ground

for dismissal of the election petition under Order-7, Rule-11

of the C.P.C. at its threshold, then at this juncture, I find no

justification to allow this Interlocutory Application under

Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. of the respondent(returned

candidate). For which, the decisions relied on behalf of the

respondent indicated in Para No.2 of this judgment have

become inapplicable to this matter at hand for the reasons