[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Laxman Bag vs Giriraj Singh Majhi ... Opposite Party on 28 November, 2025

                         ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                              I.A. No.138 of 2024
                     (Arising out of ELPET No.12 of 2024)

                                          ***

       Laxman Bag                            ...            Petitioner

                                          -VERSUS-
       Giriraj Singh Majhi                  ...           Opposite Party


       Counsel appeared for the parties:

       For the Petitioner           : Mr.Sambit Mohanty, Advocate
                                      Mr.P.P. Behera, Advocate
                                      Mr.D.Nanda, Advocate


       For the Opposite Party       : Mr. G.Agarwal, Sr.Advocate
                                      Ms.S.Srivastava, Advocate


       P R E S E N T:

                              HONOURABLE
                  MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

            Date of Hearing: 13.10.2025    ::   Date of Order : 28.11.2025

                                  J UDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--

1. This Interlocutory Application under Order 7 Rule 11 read

with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the

Respondent (Returned Candidate) in Election Petition No.12 of

2024 against the Election Petitioner praying for rejection of the

Election Petition No.12 of 2024 under the following grounds:-

(i) the Election Petitioner has no locus standi to file the Election Petition.

(ii) the averments made in the Election Petition do not disclose any cause of action.

(iii) the Election Petition is manifestly meritless, vexatious and the same do not disclose any right to sue.

(iv) the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner does not contain a concise statement of material facts and the nomination of the Respondent (Returned Candidate) was improperly accepted and due to such improper acceptance of his nomination, the Election of the Returned Candidate was duly affected.

(v) the Election Petition does not disclose about any direct injury or prejudice to the Petitioner by the result of the Election.

(vi) the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner does not specifically specify the irregularities in the nomination and affidavits of the returned candidate and also does not show, how the same has affected the rights and interest of the Election Petitioner.

(vii) though, corrupt practices have been alleged in the Election Petition against the returned candidate, but, the Election Petition does not accompany the required affidavits in a prescribed format.

2. According to the Respondent (Returned Candidate) in

Election Petition No.12 of 2024, when, the Election Petition of the

Election Petitioner is defective from its very inception for the

aforesaid grounds, then, the clever drafting of the Election

Petition has created an illusion of cause of action. For which, the

same is required to be nipped in the bud i.e. at its earliest by

rejecting the Election Petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the

C.P.C., 1908 and to prevent the Respondent (Returned Candidate)

from proceeding with unnecessary litigations.

To which, the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party in this I.A.)

objected taking his stands in his show cause denying the

aforesaid allegations alleged by the Respondent (Returned

Candidate) stating that, the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 has

been filed by him (Election Petitioner) in conformity with the

provisions of Sections 81 to 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951 and the

grounds thereof are within the parameters of Section 100(1) (d) (i)

and (iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and the rules thereof.

For which, the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner

cannot be rejected at its threshold. Therefore, the I.A. No.138 of

2024 filed by the Petitioner (Respondent in the Election Petition

No.12 of 2024) is liable to be rejected.

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

Respondent in the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 and the

learned Senior Counsel for the Election Petitioner.

4. In order to reject the Election Petition No.12 of 2024, the

learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon the following

decisions:-

(i) In a case between Tankadhar Tripathy Vrs. Dipali Das reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1793. (II) In a case between Madhab Dhada Vrs. Parsuram Dhada reported in SLP (C) No.17478-17479 of 2025 (III) In a case between Krishnamoorthy Vrs. Sivakumar reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467 (IV) In a case between Lok Prahari Vrs. Union of India reported in (2018) 4 SCC 699 (V) In a case between R.P. Moidutty Vrs. P.T.Kunju Mohammad reported in (2000) 1 SCC 481 (VI) In a case between Nana F.Patole Vrs. Nitin Gadkari reported in 2021 SCC Online Bom 3624 (VII) In a case between Gurbax Singh Ahluwalia Vrs.

Sanatan Mohakud reported in ELPET No.28 of 2024

5. On the contrary, for the dismissal of this I.A. filed by the

Respondent (Returned Candidate) in the Election Petition

No.12 of 2024, the learned Sr.Counsel for the Election

Petitioner relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Mohd. Akbar Vrs. Ashok Sahu and others reported in (2015) 14 SCC 519 (II) In a case between Union of India Vrs. Association for Democratic Reforms and another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294 (III) In a case between PUCL Vrs. UOI and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 399 (IV) In a case between Resurgence India Vrs. Election Commission of India and another reported in 2014 (I) OLR (SC) 102 (V) In a case between Kisan Shankar Kathore Vrs.

Arun Dattatray Sawant and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 162 (VI) In a case between Mairembam Prithiviraj Vrs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh reported in (2017) 2 SCC

(VII) In a case between D.Ramachandran Vrs. R.V. Janakiraman and others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 267

(VIII) In a case between Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vrs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 788

(ix) In a case between Thangjam Arun Kumar Vrs. Yumkham Erabot Singh and others reported in (2023) 17 SCC 500

(x) In a case between F.A. Sapa and others Vrs. Singora and others and others reported in (1991) 3 SCC

(xi) In a case between Umesh Challiyill Vrs. K.P.Rajendran reported in (2008) 11 SCC 740

(xii) In a case between H.D. Revanna Vrs. G.Puttaswamy Gowda and others reported in (1999) 2 SCC 217

6. In Para Nos.8 to 12 of the Election Petition No.12 of

2024, it has been averred by the Election Petitioner that, the

nomination papers of the Respondent (Returned Candidate)

were improperly accepted by the Election Officer in

contravention with the R.P. Act, 1951 and The Conduct of The

Election Rules 1961 stating that, the nomination papers of the

Respondent (Returned Candidate) were not inconformity with

the provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 and The conduct of

Election Rules 1961. For which, the Respondent (Returned

Candidate in Election Petition No.12 of 2024) was not qualified

under law to contest the Election.

7. Now, the question arises, when, in the Para Nos.8 to 12

of the Election Petition, the Election Petitioner has stated

about the causes/reasons for filing of the Election Petition

praying for declaring the result of the Respondent (Returned

Candidate) void, then at this juncture, it will be seen that,

whether the Election Petition of the Election Petitioner is liable

to be rejected at this stage under Order 7 Rule 11 of the

C.P.C., 1908 on the above grounds raised above in Para No.1

of this judgment on behalf of the Returned Candidate

(Respondent)?

8. It has been specifically stated in Para No.1 of the Election

Petition of the Election Petitioner that, he (Petitioner) is a voter

of 70-Kantabanjhi Assembly constituency having his voter I.D.

No.MFQ1427061 under the said constituency and due to the

illegal acceptance of the nomination papers of the Retuned

Candidate, the result of Election Petition has been materially

affected.

On the basis of the above averments made in Para No.1

of the Election Petition by the Election Petitioner, it cannot be

held at this stage that, the Election Petitioner has no locus

standi to file the Election Petition against the Respondent

(Returned Candidate) challenging the result of his Election.

9. So far as the allegations alleged by the Respondent

(Returned Candidate) indicated in Para No.1 of this judgment

for rejection of the Election Petition i.e. the Election Petition

does not disclose the cause of action and the same has not

fulfilled the requirements of Section 81 to 83 and 100 of the

R.P. Act, 1951 and the Conduct of the Election Rules, 1961

are concerned:-

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between K.Babu Vrs. M.Swaraj reported in 2024 (2) C.L.J. 501 (SC) in Para No. 11 that, Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 83 is not fatal for the Election Petition. Because, Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 speaks for the dismissal of an Election Petition, only when, the same is not complied with the Sections 81, 82 or 117 of the R.P. Act and the defects relating to non-compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951 are curable defects.

(ii) In a case between Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited Vrs. Ashok Vidyarthi and others reported in (2023) SCC Online (S.C.) 1612 that, The merit of the controversy not to be examined at the stage of the decision of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.,1908.

(iii) In a case between G.M. Siddeshwar Vrs. Prasanna Kumar reported in 2013 (4) SCC 776 that, If an Election Petition did not comply with Section 83(1) proviso of the R.P. Act, 1951, it would still be called an Election Petition. Merely because, the affidavit may be defective, it cannot be said that, the petition filed is not an Election Petition as understood by the R.P. Act, 1951. The affidavit in compliance with the requirements of Section 83(1) proviso of the R.P. Act, 1951 is not an integral part of the Election Petition.

(iv) In a case between Kimneo Haokip Hangshing Vrs. Kenn Raikhan and others reported in 2024 (4) Civ.C.C. 302 (SC) in Para No.7 that,

Election Petition should not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. read with Section 86 of the R.P. Act, at the very threshold, when, there is a "substantial compliance" of provisions.

(v) In a case between Narayan Jhanwar Vrs. Sunil Jhanwar and others reported in 2024 (3) Civ.C.C. 638 (Rajasthan) in Para Nos.16 and 17 that,

By no stretch of imagination, it can be concluded that, the election petition suffers from inadequacy of pleadings, so as to conclude that a cause of action had not arisen to the Election Petitioner. Because, the Election Petition cannot be dismissed on preliminary issue, while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, 1908 on the ground of that, it lacked in material facts and did not disclose any cause of action.

(vi) 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.

(vii) In a case between Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil Vrs. K.Madan Mohan Rao and others reported in 2023 (3) C.C.C. 158 (SC) In Para Nos.3 and 5 that,

When, there is allegation of false disclosure at the time of filing of the nomination by the successful candidate, in that case, an elector or voter's has the right to know about the full background of a candidate evolved through Court decisions, is an added dimension to reach tapestry of constitutional jurisprudence. The alleged non-compliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C, or even Under order XII Rule 6 of the C.P.C.

(viii) In a case between Resurgence India Vrs. Election Commission of Indian and another reported in 117 (2014) CLT (SC) 774 that,

the voter has the elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate, who is to represent him in the Parliament/Assemblies and such right to get information is universal recognized.

10. When, the Election Petitioner being an elector/voter has

filed the Election Petition No.12 of 2024 challenging the result

of the Election of the Returned Candidate (Respondent)

alleging illegal acceptance of his nomination papers on various

grounds indicated in Para No.1 of this judgment, but, when in

the averments made in the Election Petition, the Election

Petitioner has stated about the causes and reasons for filing of

the same praying for declaring the result of the Election of the

Respondent (Returned Candidate) as void, then at this

juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the

ratio of the decisions indicated in Para No.4 of this judgment

to this I.A. at hand, it is held that, this I.A. under Order 7 Rule